Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

OscarGuy wrote:You might want to check your opinion of Wright at the door because opinion matters not with Academy voters. You may hate him, but the Academy doesn't. Anna Karenina received four nominations. Yes, they were all tech categories, but that's four for a film that had a 63 metacritic score. Pride & Prejudice had an 82 on Metacritic and pulled four nominations, including Best Actress. And Atonement, which had an 85 on Metacritic and pulled in 7 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. Again, if it's anything like his period work (these three films), it's an Oscar contender. You may not like Wright, but plenty of others do and one axe to grind won't stop something that ends up inevitable (which won't be determined until December at any rate).

OscarGuy wrote:Sometimes, they go for overstated, big performances even when the film isn't good: Eddie Redmayne, Matthew McConaughey, Forest Whitaker (3 films that were not major Best Picture contenders, with only one of them not even being a Best Picture nominee, and another that wouldn't have been nominated had it not been an expanded Best Picture lineup).

Sometimes, they go for "overdue" artists making an "Oscar-caliber" film. Leonardo DiCaprio, Jeff Bridges, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Russell Crowe. Hell, Oldman managed his first nomination in something so understated (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) that the Academy clearly didn't honor him for the film, but for who he was.

*TRAILER HITS*


......

I don't know if Dolores Hart needed a waiver or not, but they would have been crazy not to have given her one if needed. She has always been a strong supporter of the Academy, making it her business to watch every single screener she's sent, though drawing the line at sharing some of them with the less worldly nuns in her abbey.

Her last screen credit was as herself in 2015's Tab Hunter Confidential. She's actually been on screen in four different decades.

She was an extra in 1947's Forever Amber, worked steadily from 1957 through 1963 and then made three appearances as herself, one of them on TV, during the current decade.

The REAL point stands that 'Darkest Hour' won't get a Best Picture Nomination


I think that's what the moral of all of this is

No, Dolores Hart would be a BAD example. She was one of the ones who would likely have needed a waiver from the acting branch leadership to avoid being pushed to emeritus status. Yes, Hackman wouldn't count because nominees are automatically granted lifetime status. The point still stands that you misunderstood the rules.

OscarGuy wrote:Well, you have misunderstood. The only ones forced to move to emeritus status are those who haven't worked in at least 3 different ten-year periods. It's a convoluted thing, but someone like Gene Hackman, who hasn't worked in more than ten years now would still be eligible to vote because he had worked in at least once in each of three different decades (the exact start-stop point of those decades varies depending in join date and so forth). This is called earning lifetime membership startus.

And even then, each branch has the ability to exempt members from these rules if they feel they warrant an exemption.

Gene Hackman would be a bad example because I think Oscar nominees/winners are exempted from this rule. I think a better example would be Dolores Hart who retired from the film industry in the '60s to become a nun. She's still an Academy member but save for participating in a documentary about her life, hasn't worked in a film ever since.

Well, you have misunderstood. The only ones forced to move to emeritus status are those who haven't worked in at least 3 different ten-year periods. It's a convoluted thing, but someone like Gene Hackman, who hasn't worked in more than ten years now would still be eligible to vote because he had worked in at least once in each of three different decades (the exact start-stop point of those decades varies depending in join date and so forth). This is called earning lifetime membership startus.

And even then, each branch has the ability to exempt members from these rules if they feel they warrant an exemption.

OscarGuy wrote: Think about the addition of 774 new members, just over 10% of the membership. With those additions, the diversity went up little. Women went from 27% representation to 28%. POC went from 11% to 13%. Those are statistically insignificant increases. Yes, it's nice that they are diversifying, but white men are still being invited at a disproportionate level than women or persons of color. Further, there are a lot of women invited who were also persons of color, meaning that they hit two birds with one stone suggesting more diversity without being exceedingly more diverse. What they DIDN'T extol was a reducing in the average age of the membership. I honestly wonder if the age went down much at all.

One of the problems we've had is not that it's straight white men doing the voting (as some of those votes were from their straight white wives), but that it's older members voting. The biggest issues of recent years have been the staid, old-fashioned type movies that seem to be dominating the awards. That's still the case, it's just that Best Picture isn't necessarily reflecting that. Increasing the female membership by 1% and the POC membership by 2% isn't going to affect the diversity of selections much. Will an extra 140 persons of color or an extra 70 women do much to change the actual outcomes of the votes? In a body of 7,000+ members, it isn't likely to have much effect at all.

You're neglecting the fact that older, retired members of the Academy are no longer allowed to vote. If I understand the new rules correctly, if you haven't worked on a film in ten years or more, you go into a Member Emeritus status meaning you have all the perks and privileges of an Academy member....except actual voting. They instituted this rule last year I believe and probably is also a factor in diversifying their ranks.

Feel free to start one at any time.

Will there be a thread for predictions throughout the rest of the year? Ones unconnected to the competitive game in this thread?

You keep talking about Darkest Hour being an Oscar winner, but reference Best Picture. No one said it was anything even remotely close to a Best Picture contender. Maybe for a nomination, but it doesn't even need that to be an Oscar winner for Gary Oldman, which is the entire debate you've been arguing against.

Sometimes, they go for overstated, big performances even when the film isn't good: Eddie Redmayne, Matthew McConaughey, Forest Whitaker (3 films that were not major Best Picture contenders, with only one of them not even being a Best Picture nominee, and another that wouldn't have been nominated had it not been an expanded Best Picture lineup).

Sometimes, they go for "overdue" artists making an "Oscar-caliber" film. Leonardo DiCaprio, Jeff Bridges, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Russell Crowe. Hell, Oldman managed his first nomination in something so understated (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) that the Academy clearly didn't honor him for the film, but for who he was.

I get the appeal of saying the more diverse Academy membership might change the balance of power, but I wonder how much. Outside of Best Picture last year, was anything really unexpected happening? No. Everything was proceeding as expected until the final envelope was opened. The same could be said of the prior year and the year before that. What we were seeing wasn't a successful diversification of the Oscar membership, but a reflection of the comparative oddity of the Best Picture tabulation. It allowed something that people were largely passionate about, but hardly antipathetic towards, beat out something that had a lot of love-hate going on. La La Land and The Revenant had passionate voters, but also had a lot of detractors who could sabotage the film by ranking it lower in their lists. That's a gaming of the system, not a reflection of diversity.

Think about the addition of 774 new members, just over 10% of the membership. With those additions, the diversity went up little. Women went from 27% representation to 28%. POC went from 11% to 13%. Those are statistically insignificant increases. Yes, it's nice that they are diversifying, but white men are still being invited at a disproportionate level than women or persons of color. Further, there are a lot of women invited who were also persons of color, meaning that they hit two birds with one stone suggesting more diversity without being exceedingly more diverse. What they DIDN'T extol was a reducing in the average age of the membership. I honestly wonder if the age went down much at all.

One of the problems we've had is not that it's straight white men doing the voting (as some of those votes were from their straight white wives), but that it's older members voting. The biggest issues of recent years have been the staid, old-fashioned type movies that seem to be dominating the awards. That's still the case, it's just that Best Picture isn't necessarily reflecting that. Increasing the female membership by 1% and the POC membership by 2% isn't going to affect the diversity of selections much. Will an extra 140 persons of color or an extra 70 women do much to change the actual outcomes of the votes? In a body of 7,000+ members, it isn't likely to have much effect at all.

anonymous wrote
With the new system of voting for Best Picture plus the influx of new members, many of them coming from the international film community, I'd think twice before making such arguments. Moonlight's victory (a black, gay coming of age film that is actually quite European in style if you think about it) could be a signal that the Academy is starting to become less old, less white and less male.

I completely agree. Moonlight won because of the new membership, which I couldn't be more excited about.

Just to be clear, I never said 'Call Me By Your Name' wasn't going to win. I said it was a Best Picture contender. I know a few people who said it wasn't going to win for reasons that I said ultimately didn't matter.

The Pianist wrote
And now we're at; 'Nahh, Call Me By Your Name is too European! It doesn't seem as Baity or American-esc like 'The Papers!'
Granted, we're at a VERY early stage to call that type of statement as a lock, but remember when everyone was saying early on;
'NAAAAHHH, 12 Years a Slave won't even be a contender! It won't even stand a CHANCE against 'Captain Phillips'......"

Two things: 1) I never said Call Me By Your Name wasn't going to win. What I said was:

Sabin wrote
I haven't seen Call Me By Your Name but I know a few people who have seen it, they love it, but they don't think it's going to win because it's, for lack of a better word, too European. But it's clearly going to be a conversation piece which will keep it in the game, so it has to be considered some kind of Best Picture contender.

And 2) who said Captain Phillips was going to beat 12 Years a Slave? At any point in the race?

"Okay, this one's cheating a bit, as much of Team Mashable has already seen and loved Call Me By Your Name. But I'm telling you, guys: believe the hype. Luca Guadagnino's coming-of-age romance is nothing short of exquisite, pulsing with life and heady with desire. Featuring career-making performances by Armie Hammer and Timothée Chalamet, Call Me By Your Name will leave you smiling through your tears." -
Mashable.com, 13 Hours Ago as of right now, 11:55 am

"believe the hype."

anonymous1980 wrote:

Sabin wrote:
I haven't seen Call Me By Your Name but I know a few people who have seen it, they love it, but they don't think it's going to win because it's, for lack of a better word, too European. But it's clearly going to be a conversation piece which will keep it in the game, so it has to be considered some kind of Best Picture contender.

With the new system of voting for Best Picture plus the influx of new members, many of them coming from the international film community, I'd think twice before making such arguments. Moonlight's victory (a black, gay coming of age film that is actually quite European in style if you think about it) could be a signal that the Academy is starting to become less old, less white and less male.

Thank You!

Sabin wrote:
I haven't seen Call Me By Your Name but I know a few people who have seen it, they love it, but they don't think it's going to win because it's, for lack of a better word, too European. But it's clearly going to be a conversation piece which will keep it in the game, so it has to be considered some kind of Best Picture contender.

With the new system of voting for Best Picture plus the influx of new members, many of them coming from the international film community, I'd think twice before making such arguments. Moonlight's victory (a black, gay coming of age film that is actually quite European in style if you think about it) could be a signal that the Academy is starting to become less old, less white and less male.

OscarGuy wrote:You might want to check your opinion of Wright at the door because opinion matters not with Academy voters. You may hate him, but the Academy doesn't. Anna Karenina received four nominations. Yes, they were all tech categories, but that's four for a film that had a 63 metacritic score. Pride & Prejudice had an 82 on Metacritic and pulled four nominations, including Best Actress. And Atonement, which had an 85 on Metacritic and pulled in 7 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. Again, if it's anything like his period work (these three films), it's an Oscar contender. You may not like Wright, but plenty of others do and one axe to grind won't stop something that ends up inevitable (which won't be determined until December at any rate).

Again, hundreds of more Academy Voters from the industry have just been included, so the chances of some sort of "bias" seem more and more slim. If It gets a 69% on Rotten Tomatoes, I doubt any "bias" will come into play. The last 3 Winners of BP have been smaller indie films rather than a high budget Oscar Bait Drama pushed heavily by big studios. Now that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY dictate that Darkest Hour won't have a spot or be a Contender, but let's look at some statistics I just made up; just look at films that have been nominated in the past FIVE years: Room, Her, Amour, Nebraska, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Whiplash, Manchester By The Sea, AND SO ON! Also, with 'Moonlight' winning Best Picture and being MILES AHEAD in the race against the Generic Oscar Bait Biopic Drama 'Hacksaw Ridge.' I believe we might have entered a new stage of Best Picture Winners or, just the Academy Awards in general; where well made DIFFERENT films on important subjects take the cake, or just well made smaller films in general. Plus, at this stage with all the latter statements I typed, It all depends on the quality of his film now. Sorry to inform the people high on Joe Wright But, on the flipside; The script for 'Darkest Hour' WAS a passion project for Anthony McCarten, who's coming off his Oscar nomination for The Theory of Everything. If Joe Wright can go on autopilot, then the film should at least be competent. The Theory of Everything produced an Oscar-winning performance for Redmayne, and that film was about as pedestrian as you could get. Plus, Oldman said that he's essentially in every scene for this movie, so he'll have a lot of material to work with.

Sabin wrote:

I haven't seen Call Me By Your Name but I know a few people who have seen it, they love it, but they don't think it's going to win because it's, for lack of a better word, too European.

EXACTLY! How many people have said "Nahhh, 'Spotlight' isn't going to win. It's too straight forward and as not flashy as 'The Revenant."
Or; "Nahhh, 'Birdman' isn't going to win. 'Boyhood' Took 12 Years to Make!" Or how about; "Argo isn't going to win over Lincoln, It's Ben Affleck!"
Or how about; "Moonlight isn't going to beat La La Land, It's too diverse while having universal themes, and not a Hollywood throwback!"
And now we're at; 'Nahh, Call Me By Your Name is too European! It doesn't seem as Baity or American-esc like 'The Papers!'
Granted, we're at a VERY early stage to call that type of statement as a lock, but remember when everyone was saying early on;
'NAAAAHHH, 12 Years a Slave won't even be a contender! It won't even stand a CHANCE against 'Captain Phillips'......"