Page 1 of 3
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:41 pm
by Bog
Not gonna happen....he's facing 2 borderline juggernauts, and as was discussed elsewhere a picture/director split between them doesn't even feel right. Schnabel seems to fit very nicely into the Meirelles/Almodovar type slot of "very nice work, here's your award" - also alluding to the fact that the same people that nominate vote and they didn't nominate his picture, how serious of a threat could he be for a win?
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:18 am
by Movielover
Just saw The Diving Bell and the Butterfly last night and I think that's the film to beat in this category. I know it would be history-making, but the direction is spectacular. My guess is the Coens win their other three nominations, but Directing goes to Schnabel making this an exciting Awards year all around.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:56 pm
by Hustler
After the Sag No Country... is becoming the lock.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:44 pm
by Steph2
Sonic Youth wrote:EVERYBODY argued you on this. I was hardly the worst.
Huh. This one's too easy.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:29 pm
by Sonic Youth
Okri wrote:Whoa.
Oscarguy, if you recall - I spent most of that debate agreeing with you. I agreed that the Coen brothers weren't "oscar bait" directors and any suggestion to the contrary was wrong. I felt that the Cannes buzz was something to ignore because Cannes always has a hard on for the Coen brothers (they've had like nine films at the competition) and didn't always translate into oscar/mainstream success.
I don't think anyone believes a film chosen for the competish constitutes buzz of any kind. It's how the film is received afterwards by those who've seen it that gives the film at least the seed from which buzz can grow. No different from a plain old critic's screening, and the critic's at Cannes are usually the same ones that we follow throughout the year. We wait for the reception, we tally the raves and the positives and the negatives, and we adjust accordingly. Now, if the film had a "Hudsucker Proxy" reception, I don't think anyone would disagree that NCFOM would be declared an also-ran.
The bone of contention was the insistence that the buzz out of Cannes was milder than it actually was, with the few reviews on Rotten Tomatoes representing the only critics who saw the thing. It's not there was no credit to the acclaim back then. It was denying there was a strong level of acclaim in the first place. Fact is, the media declared "No Country" as one of the front runners. For all the years their films have competed, I don't think that's happened since "Fargo". And it's something to at least make one say "Hmmm... this may be a development worth following."
Who said the Coen's were Oscar bait? I don't remember that. I'd disagree with that one, too.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:46 pm
by OscarGuy
I don't think career recognition and sentiment are necessarily the same thing. Sentiment is when they realize that they don't have many more opportunities to recognize someone. Career recognition is given to directors that have been in the biz for some time and have earned good will points. And seriously, which other directors could have benefit from that this year? I'm not saying that they deserve to be considered career recognized, I'm saying that I'm afraid that might be what happened. Because contrary to your and my opinions, for some reason, directors especially, like the Coens.
And I'm sure they also liked No Country for Old Men, which I will never understand (and still no one has yet explained why it's more than ok). But then again, no one could ever explain to me why Fargo was some "god's gift to film history" product.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:34 pm
by Okri
Whoa.
Oscarguy, if you recall - I spent most of that debate agreeing with you. I agreed that the Coen brothers weren't "oscar bait" directors and any suggestion to the contrary was wrong. I felt that the Cannes buzz was something to ignore because Cannes always has a hard on for the Coen brothers (they've had like nine films at the competition) and didn't always translate into oscar/mainstream success. I argued with Sonic Youth over his characterization of Cormac McCarthy as an author that the academy would recognize and check out his film as a result (something I still disagree with). And, having read the book, I didn't think any film that hewed closely to it (which this one does) would be a major contender (it was too difficult for the bland voters, I thought). And I stated I was consistently underwhelmed by the Coen brothers as a directorial force, so yeah - we agreed on a lot.
Where I disagree with you is your current characterization. To me, the Coen Brothers winning is not indicative of any real sentimental support (surely only one previous nod with the Directors Guild doesn't suggest they have any sentimental suppoort), but moreso of the sheer level of acclaim they've received this year. People who haven't been won over before by the Coen Brothers tend to praise this film quite highly (on this board, we have Eric, dws and myself). The reason Sonic Youth is attacking your comments is not because you dislike the film, it's that he doesn't feel (or at least I don't) that you're giving credit to the acclaim. It's the acclaim, in my mind, that's boosted the Coens to this level. It's not sentimentality. Not any pre-ordained buzz from festivals (which is so wierd sometimes). Your suggestions of a career tribute win/sentimental one feels more like another way to dismiss the "eventual" victory as something other than deserved, which is (I think) contrary to how the year has played out.
My two cents.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:11 pm
by Sonic Youth
OscarGuy wrote:No, Sonic, it's a matter of you always ASSUMING. And there's a difference between the fringe groups patterns and the DGA, why would I ever contradict that? I never have. I never will. I just don't like their choice.
And dws, who the hell else among this group would be a sentimental choice? It's not like any of them besides the Coens have been nominated before.
And at the time, there was no empirical evidence to suggest the Coens were in contention. Some "word of mouth" is certainly not enough. You're the one who made it into some grand crime that I didn't recognize your beloved Coens as contenders. You made a big deal about it, not I. So, before you accuse anyone of going overboard, think about what you did to egg it on. I was content to say it wasn't a contender until I saw it at the precursors, but that wasn't enough. I may have been a bit overzealous, but it was nothing in comparison to your attempt to gang rape me over it.
Well, I'm looking at the NCFOM thread, and your characterization doesn't hold water. EVERYBODY argued you on this. I was hardly the worst.
My beloved Coens? Until now, I haven't cared for any of their films since "O Brother", or half of them prior to it.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1201453893
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:34 am
by FilmFan720
But does there have to be a sentimental choice in every category every year? I do not believe there does.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:15 am
by OscarGuy
No, Sonic, it's a matter of you always ASSUMING. And there's a difference between the fringe groups patterns and the DGA, why would I ever contradict that? I never have. I never will. I just don't like their choice.
And dws, who the hell else among this group would be a sentimental choice? It's not like any of them besides the Coens have been nominated before.
And at the time, there was no empirical evidence to suggest the Coens were in contention. Some "word of mouth" is certainly not enough. You're the one who made it into some grand crime that I didn't recognize your beloved Coens as contenders. You made a big deal about it, not I. So, before you accuse anyone of going overboard, think about what you did to egg it on. I was content to say it wasn't a contender until I saw it at the precursors, but that wasn't enough. I may have been a bit overzealous, but it was nothing in comparison to your attempt to gang rape me over it.
But I'm done trying to argue this with you because you can't see where you're wrong. EVER. You can't even admit it publicly. I was wrong in my earlier assumptions that the Coens didn't have a chance. Obviously the Academy has more love for them than I really expected. So, heaven forbid I CHANGE MY MIND about something. Heaven forbid, I actually look at what has happened and alter my perception. You can't do it, so obviously you think I can't.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:36 am
by VanHelsing
The winner is so predictable. Oops, winners in this case.
Next stop: SAG Awards!
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:20 am
by Sonic Youth
OscarGuy wrote:Sonic Youth wrote:Oscar Guy, thank you for your information-at-the-ready, but how many precursors have historically been 100% accurate in forecasting the Oscars? Of course the answer is zero.
It really, REALLY goes without saying that not every precursor is a perfect match. This is something we know already, and have known for years. And in some cases, decades. You underestimate the intelligence of your board members.
I don't recall you dismissing the value of all the precursors when it was Scorese's or Peter Jackson's year. This year, it's like a reflex action.
And, Sonic, perhaps you misread my intent of my post. My post was not discrediting the DGA as a precursor...after all, do you think I'm that stupid to not remember that the DGA has THE best record at predicting the Best Director Oscar winner bar NONE?
My reference was to the DGA picking the WRONG choice. In My Opinion, they chose the sentimental, easy choice. They avoided the more consistent Paul Thomas Anderson perhaps because he wasn't a previous nominee or they didn't like his previous films, regardless, it was my opinion that they can make bad choices, not that they couldn't make bad predictions.
"Stubborn" is the word I'd use, not "stupid". And yes, I do think you'd be stubborn to neglect to mention DGAs power as a precursor because of your year-long crusade against the film, with your outlandish reasons as to why (back then) it wouldn't be nominated, and your obnoxious unwarranted rants about the "scary" Coen Bros. fanboys who won't listen to reason.
And when you follow up EVERY SINGLE precursor announcement this season with "Well, it didn't help Dick Bogarde in 1951", of COURSE I'll read your post as more of the same. Who wouldn't? So, sorry if I did indeed misread your intentions, but it does serve you right.
It is interesting you'd say the Academy would vote for the Coen's only because of some sort of sentimental career recognition. Months ago, you insisted the Coen's would never get nominated because the Academy hates the Coen's (evidence being they've recieved little attention from AMPAS since Fargo). That's turning reasoning on a dime.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1201447374
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:05 am
by dws1982
OscarGuy wrote:My reference was to the DGA picking the WRONG choice. In My Opinion, they chose the sentimental, easy choice. They avoided the more consistent Paul Thomas Anderson perhaps because he wasn't a previous nominee or they didn't like his previous films, regardless, it was my opinion that they can make bad choices, not that they couldn't make bad predictions.
I don't see how the Coens are a sentimental choice. An easy choice, maybe, because they've won so many of the precursors, but but it's not like it's a sentimental choice in the way Scorsese was last year.
I get a feeling you're trying to formulate a conspiracy theory in order to explain away a win that you aren't happy about.
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:49 am
by OscarGuy
Sabin wrote:Sonic Youth
Less often than some Oscar prognosticators I know.
OscarGuy
Don't be a fuckhead.
Sorry, I'm too busy being right.
Check out the DGA predictions thread and my own predictions.
The Coens were my prediction all along. I was HOPING for a PTA win, that doesn't mean I was predicting it.
Now that I'm done pointing you out being vindictive, shallow and wrong about me, I'll go back to ignoring you.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1201438231
Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:48 am
by OscarGuy
Sonic Youth wrote:Oscar Guy, thank you for your information-at-the-ready, but how many precursors have historically been 100% accurate in forecasting the Oscars? Of course the answer is zero.
It really, REALLY goes without saying that not every precursor is a perfect match. This is something we know already, and have known for years. And in some cases, decades. You underestimate the intelligence of your board members.
I don't recall you dismissing the value of all the precursors when it was Scorese's or Peter Jackson's year. This year, it's like a reflex action.
And, Sonic, perhaps you misread my intent of my post. My post was not discrediting the DGA as a precursor...after all, do you think I'm that stupid to not remember that the DGA has THE best record at predicting the Best Director Oscar winner bar NONE?
My reference was to the DGA picking the WRONG choice. In My Opinion, they chose the sentimental, easy choice. They avoided the more consistent Paul Thomas Anderson perhaps because he wasn't a previous nominee or they didn't like his previous films, regardless, it was my opinion that they can make bad choices, not that they couldn't make bad predictions.