Page 5 of 8
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:37 pm
by Reza
It appears to have narrowed down between The Social Network and The King's Speech (so far) but what about Foreign Film? Wonder if Romania will submit Gruber's Journey? It deals with the Academy's favorite subject.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:17 pm
by Damien
OscarGuy wrote:Tripp has the general idea I was going for. I wasn't talking about people who did one or two bits on television, but those who had long careers in TV and let's be frank, I would consider James L. Brooks' pre-Terms career more impressive than Tom Hooper's...what would the face of television been without Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Lou Grant, Taxi (this is somewhat of a stretch for me, but it was well respected in its day).
While directing movies and miniseries for television does carry a bit more prestige these days, the question really becomes whether recognizing Hooper or Fincher would make more sense. Now, if you say Hooper considering the laundry list of directors this past decade who've won, then I say you're not clearing thinkly. But, I don't think any one of us want a pre-decision this early (or even in December), but part of the fun of the fall months is trying to read the tea leaves. So, while I think it's good fun to try and figure out what's going to figure, I still think calling any of these races this early is a bit too, well, early. But, if the race were held today I'd say Fincher has a leg up on Hooper in the Best Director race, but depending on who the other five are will determine which one contends.
A year ago at this time, it was gonna be a battle between Up In The Air, Precious and, for all we knew, Avatar. There had been an Iraqi war movie that nobody much cared about, Hurt Locker, which had come and gone and who cared?
Which shows why I've never seen the point in making Oscar predictions this early in the year.
Edited By Damien on 1285480453
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:20 pm
by Sabin
I'm guilty of this too, but there are more fill-in-the-blank analogies in this thread than the SATs.
Edited By Sabin on 1285471248
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:57 pm
by Big Magilla
It's supposed to be based on the work at hand. James L. Brooks was up against Ingmar Bergman for crying out loud. They just happened to like his film more than they liked Bergman's.
Fincher may have a leg up with the critics, especially the younger ones, but not necessarily with the the older skewering members of the Academy, which is where we came in. It's impossible to call at this point, and that's what make it exciting.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:22 pm
by OscarGuy
Tripp has the general idea I was going for. I wasn't talking about people who did one or two bits on television, but those who had long careers in TV and let's be frank, I would consider James L. Brooks' pre-Terms career more impressive than Tom Hooper's...what would the face of television been without Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Lou Grant, Taxi (this is somewhat of a stretch for me, but it was well respected in its day).
While directing movies and miniseries for television does carry a bit more prestige these days, the question really becomes whether recognizing Hooper or Fincher would make more sense. Now, if you say Hooper considering the laundry list of directors this past decade who've won, then I say you're not clearing thinkly. But, I don't think any one of us want a pre-decision this early (or even in December), but part of the fun of the fall months is trying to read the tea leaves. So, while I think it's good fun to try and figure out what's going to figure, I still think calling any of these races this early is a bit too, well, early. But, if the race were held today I'd say Fincher has a leg up on Hooper in the Best Director race, but depending on who the other five are will determine which one contends.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:28 pm
by Eric
I'd rather celebrate a year in which some tasteful, inoffensive basket of British crumpets wasn't automatically in the mix.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:21 pm
by Big Magilla
But Hooper is a prestige television director - Elizabeth I, Longford and John Adams were all classy productions, not your run-of-the-mill TV junk.
After years of complaining about how dull the Oscar race winds up because the awards have become so predictable, it's nice to have a year in which there seems to be a genuine horse race in the offing. Let's put our natural skepticism aside for once and celebrate the possibilities.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:13 pm
by FilmFan720
To rephrase OscarGuy's question a little bit, when was the last time a "television director" won Best Director? People like Spielberg and Pollack started out on television, but by the time they won they were solidified, respected film directors. Tim Hooper, like James L. Brooks when he won, is known today as mostly a television director. There is definitely a stigma amongst some against that.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:57 pm
by Big Magilla
Off the top of my head, John Schlesinger, Sydney Pollack and Steven Spielberg, and if you count honorary winners, add Robert Altman and Sidney Lumet to the list. Nominees who didn't win include Martin Ritt and John Frankenheimer. I'm sure there are more, but I don;t have the time to do the research.
Going back to Delbert Mann and others in the 1950s, there hasn't been the same stigma against directors who come from TV as there had been against actors who made their names on the small screen.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:48 pm
by OscarGuy
Danny Boyle is a good example, but he had also been working in film for more than a decade before winning the Oscar and although most of his work wasn't Oscar-capable, he did start off big with Trainspotting, which earned an Oscar nomination.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:36 pm
by Okri
Hmm....
Danny Boyle started out in television. Most British directors did, actually. The lines between film, television and theatre are far more fluid (Mike Leigh's the most obvious example). Of American directors, George Roy Hill and Delbert Mann did.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:09 pm
by OscarGuy
I don't know. I see The King's Speech more like The Queen. Well respected British thespian taking on the role of a monarch faced with difficult choices. It pleases the anglophiles which belong to the Academy, but may also fit the crowd-pleasing quality of a Seabiscuit.
The Social Network could be this year's Little Miss Sunshine for all we know and there could be another film that just emerges that we hadn't thought about and becomes the frontrunner.
I think a lot of things are hazy right now, but David Fincher's a bubbling under director who's delivered several strong box office performers. While I don't know that it will propel is film to Best Picture (unless it's a box office and social phenom itself), but I'm seriously thinking Fincher will win the "auteur" slot Best Director Oscar. That is, if we're following the trend of the last decade.
Now here's a question for those of you who know your directors better than I. How many Best Picture winning directors started off or earned most of their fame as television directors? Is James L. Brooks the last one? Or are there others in between. Tom Hooper is one of those and I wonder if that would hurt him with the Academy since he's not exactly one of their own yet (The Damned United and Red Dust are his only Big Screen efforts to date). Just pondering.
Personally, I think there are plenty of films that could upset the apple cart this year. We don't know how good movies like Love & Other Drugs, The Debt, True Grit, The Fighter or The Way Back are. Any one of them could pose a serious threat. And critics don't always have influence over the Academy, so what they pick won't always be what dominates the precursors.
Though, looking at the last several Best Picture winners, The Lord of the Rings is the last film to really feel like it was part of the past...before that, Chicago. So, we're looking at a string of modern-set or near-modern-set features to win the prize. Will the Academy return to the old period drama tradition or will it continue on its modernist path?
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:36 am
by Big Magilla
The alternative, I suppose, would be for people to take for granted The Social Network's unanimous rave reviews and assume it will sail to victory the way we expected Brokeback Mountain to win everything, and then be disappointed when it doesn't.
Not having seen either, but comparing this year's crop to the one of five years ago I would think The King's Speech is this year's Good Night, and Good Luck, which still leaves room for a Crash.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:27 am
by OscarGuy
Sorry. it sounded very much like people were cementing in King's Speech as a winner for Best Picture. I was simply trying to encourage what seemed like far too strong pushes for the idea that King's Speech would be the winner.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:31 am
by Sonic Youth
Okay, I apologize for bringing it up. But it did give me a flashback.
But, not to speak for others, I think we need to recognize there is a difference between making an ironclad prediction and merely toying with possibilities. We're all aware something may happen in the next three months to shift the current dynamics. But what's wrong with exploring different scenarios at this early date? It's all for fun.