Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Been reading Sasha Stone's Twitter today. She's making a strong case for involuntary commitment.

Overall I liked the list. I haven't had a great deal of time to look over it and think about it all, but it's one of the few years where I've already seen a lot of the nominations on nomination day, and I like that there were several surprises in the lineup.

flipp525 wrote:From an Academy member:

"By chance, the last two screeners I watched were Two Days, One Night and Still Alice. If there's a possibility of an upset, it could be in this race.

Julianne Moore is fine, but it's a terrible movie. And Cotillard really is amazing in an excellent movie.

I was surprised Cotillard got nominated. But now that she is, voters will make a special effort to see the movie (I still don't think most members have seen Two Days, One Night) and that will only help Cotillard.

Moore is still the favorite, but I could see a way in which Cotillard wins. No one else has a chance."

Jane Fonda tweeted during the nominations process that Cotillard was very good and deserving of a nomination...

Mister Tee wrote:

flipp525 wrote:

anonymous1980 wrote:If that happens, it will be the second time Cotillard wins over someone playing an Alzheimer's patient.

No offense, but I already made that point down-thread.

And, Mister Tee, I didn't say it was a terrible movie. I was reporting to an Academy Awards discussion board what an actual Academy member has stated on the subject. Nothing is a sacred cow around here.

Apologies if you misconstrued that as addressed to you. I was addressing the Academy member, who I think is an idiot.

Understood. All is good.

flipp525 wrote:

anonymous1980 wrote:If that happens, it will be the second time Cotillard wins over someone playing an Alzheimer's patient.

No offense, but I already made that point down-thread.

And, Mister Tee, I didn't say it was a terrible movie. I was reporting to an Academy Awards discussion board what an actual Academy member has stated on the subject. Nothing is a sacred cow around here.

Apologies if you misconstrued that as addressed to you. I was addressing the Academy member, who I think is an idiot.

anonymous1980 wrote:If that happens, it will be the second time Cotillard wins over someone playing an Alzheimer's patient.

No offense, but I already made that point down-thread.

And, Mister Tee, I didn't say it was a terrible movie. I was reporting to an Academy Awards discussion board what an actual Academy member has stated on the subject. Nothing is a sacred cow around here.

Okay: if Selma fans are sick of hearing about LBJ, I'm sick of hearing Still Alice is a terrible movie. Any organization that's showered honors on The Theory of Everything (and, for all I know, The Imitation Game, which I've yet to see) has no business dismissing Still Alice so ignorantly. Call it a small movie, a minor movie, a limited movie...I won't argue. But acting as if it's a Razzie contender demeans the speaker, not the film.

And, to wade into it: I wonder if the fact it's centered on a woman has something to do with this hyperbolic reaction.

If that happens, it will be the second time Cotillard wins over someone playing an Alzheimer's patient.

From an Academy member:

"By chance, the last two screeners I watched were Two Days, One Night and Still Alice. If there's a possibility of an upset, it could be in this race.

Julianne Moore is fine, but it's a terrible movie. And Cotillard really is amazing in an excellent movie.

I was surprised Cotillard got nominated. But now that she is, voters will make a special effort to see the movie (I still don't think most members have seen Two Days, One Night) and that will only help Cotillard.

Moore is still the favorite, but I could see a way in which Cotillard wins. No one else has a chance."

I've been oddly Zen about the Oscar nominations. I loved Force Majeure, The LEGO Movie and Life Itself but I'm not all hopping mad that they were snubbed. Ditto Jake Gyllenhaal for Nightcrawler who I was rooting to get in Actor.

That said, I think I like to dwell on the positives. Headlines always seem to choose to dwell on the snubs. I like the focus on what DID get in: I love the fact that Marion Cotillard got in for Two Days, One NIght. Not only is it a great performance but it also means a Dardenne film can actually call itself an Oscar nominee. How great is that?

I also would like to remark on the fact that longtime auteurs Richard Linklater and Wes Anderson both got multiple Academy Award nominations for films they wanted to make and is purely in their voice and style. They didn't have to make a biopic, a Holocaust film or a WWII movie to get noticed and praise from the Academy. Distinctive auteurs often take a long time before the Academy actually GETS them. I'm glad it happened for them both without them compromising what makes them unique.

Adding to the irony of the Selma snubs, today is Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday.

rolotomasi99 wrote:

Mister Tee wrote:Selma's set of nominations is genuinely odd, but I have to say, even including it for director/actor in my predictions (and knowing both of those were highly competitive), I found it hard to locate a lot of categories where it could compete. Does the song now become the go-to category for its disappointed partisans?

Having just listened to all the song nominees, I am pretty sure SELMA has this win sewn up. Especially after Common's beautiful speech at the Golden Globes.

You're probably right, but "I'm Not Gonna Miss You" could be the sentimental favorite. Glen Campbell wrote the song for his wife right after he found out he had Alzheimer's, and he had such trouble remembering the lyrics that he had to record each line one at a time, which took a very long time as you could imagine. Campbell is currently in 24-hour care and is nearing the end of his battle. Knowing this, it's difficult to listen to the song without getting teary-eyed.

rolotomasi99 wrote:

Sonic Youth wrote:I would love to know what Selma's producers are thinking right now. Whatever it was Paramount thought it was doing with the screeners, I hope no one believes that they succeeded because they received a Best Film nomination. It's a classic "Would you rather" question. Would you rather have your film a). recieve several nominations (Actor, screenplay, a few techs, maybe even director) but not Best Picture; or b). Best Picture and nothing else (other than song). Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't choice a. seem like the more gratifying of the two?

Of course, Selma could have had choice a. and Best Picture. Who knows? If reports of the screener issues were accurate, then lesson learned, hopefully. Better to get more of them out earlier rather than limit them only to AMPAS members. A wider net catches more fish.

Except the real point for Paramount is to get people to buy tickets for the film. All the press this "snub" will create is golden for them. I mean look how much of this thread alone has been devoted to it. Paramount could give a fuck about the other nominations other than how they translated into money for them. Ava DuVernay on the other hand is probably furious at how the whole campaign was handled.

Not when you have a film that could have legitimately been a contender to win Best Picture and maybe a lot more. With the reviews, subject matter, accessibility and support the film has, had Paramount given the film the support it needed, it could have ended up with Picture, Director, Actor, Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Song, Costume Design...throw in a nod for Supporting Actress and you have the most nominated film of the day. Certainly, a Best Picture win would give this film a much bigger bump than it has right now. Do we think it will even be in theaters still by the end of February?

And the highest-grossing of the best picture nominees is that commercial juggernaut, The Grand Budapest Hotel. (Though American Sniper for sure and The Imitation Game very probably will top it in the end)

But congratulations, Academy: your expansion to allow for more hit movies has worked like a charm!

Sonic Youth wrote:I would love to know what Selma's producers are thinking right now. Whatever it was Paramount thought it was doing with the screeners, I hope no one believes that they succeeded because they received a Best Film nomination. It's a classic "Would you rather" question. Would you rather have your film a). recieve several nominations (Actor, screenplay, a few techs, maybe even director) but not Best Picture; or b). Best Picture and nothing else (other than song). Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't choice a. seem like the more gratifying of the two?

Of course, Selma could have had choice a. and Best Picture. Who knows? If reports of the screener issues were accurate, then lesson learned, hopefully. Better to get more of them out earlier rather than limit them only to AMPAS members. A wider net catches more fish.

Except the real point for Paramount is to get people to buy tickets for the film. All the press this "snub" will create is golden for them. I mean look how much of this thread alone has been devoted to it. Paramount could give a fuck about the other nominations other than how they translated into money for them. Ava DuVernay on the other hand is probably furious at how the whole campaign was handled.

Big Magilla wrote:Is Selma the first ever film nominated for just Best Picture and Best Song?

From what I could find, yes! Other Best Picture nominees were nominated for only one other award, but they are usually categories like acting, directing, or writing. It is certainly rare for the one other award to be a tech category. WINGS (1927) received a nomination for Engineering Effects, A TALE OF TWO CITIES (1935) and DECISION BEFORE DAWN (1951) earned editing nominations, and 42ND STREET (1933), FLIRTATION WALK (1934), THE WHITE PARADE (1934), and NAUGHTY MARIETTA (1935) all received Sound Recording nominations.