Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:00 pm
by Mister Tee
There are people at various sites arguing that Wall E is going to take the original screenplay Oscar. This trial heat obviously didn't test that maxim.
Should Slumdog/Milk repeat at the Oscars, it will not only, as BJ tells us, be the 5th consecutive year of perfect correspondence, it will also be the 4th year in a row of the dullest possible screenplay outcomes: best picture wins one, a best picture nominee wins another.
This was the stultifying trend through many of the post-'57 years (when screenplay was divided into its curent adpated/original format), the only exceptions being when a musical or wide-screen epic was passed over, or when the original category -- reflecting Hollywood bias toward adaptation -- featured no best picture nominees. Whenever that was not the case, a best picture nominee triumphed, no matter how lame...How the West Was Won, Dead Poets Society, Ghost.
This trend came to an end in 1991, when enthusiasm for Thelma and Louise trumped what would otherwise, by tradition, have been a Bugsy win. And then the floodgates opened: Usual Suspects, Sling Blade, Gods and Monsters, Almost Famous, Talk to Her and Eternal Sunshine all beat out best picture nominees -- in some cases, best picture winners. And Million Dollar Baby -- not an epic or musical -- lost to the more-highly-praised script of Sideways despite winning the top prize. It seemed that, at last, voters had fund a way to decouple the screenwriting awards from the best picture race.
But the last few years have shown a worrsiome trend back in the other direction. It started with Return of the King -- an epic -- winning screenplay over far more dialogue-centered scripts as part of its grand sweep. And the past three years have seen dully predictable best picture/other nominee pairings. On that basis alone -- certainly nothing against a deserving Milk -- I'd half-root fo Wall E to win, to shake things up anew.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:25 am
by Okri
Guys, remember Mister Tee's maxim - they only surprise to disappoint. Unless you're one of those who feels that Slumdog Millionaire is the least of the five nominees.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:11 am
by Franz Ferdinand
Oh, I didn't even realize these were the actual winners, I just read it and thought it was paperboy's estimates.
This race is getting ridiculously not racy.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:09 am
by dreaMaker
Slumdog Millionaire? yawn.
I hope Academy will give us some pleasant shocks.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:07 pm
by The Original BJ
AND for the fifth year an a row the WGA and Oscar screenplay categories will match perfectly.
I'd probably pick both of those scripts, too, but, still...where's the suspense anymore?
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:04 pm
by paperboy
Winners, as expected:
Best Adapted Screenplay
Slumdog Millionaire
Screenplay by Simon Beaufoy; based on the novel “Q&A” by Vikas Swarup
Best Original Screenplay
Milk
Written by Dustin Lance Black
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:55 am
by dylanfan23
I"m shocked and dissappointed with the inclusion of burn after reading. So many better original screenplays this year and they pick the coens worst yet. As a huge fan of the coens i was very dissappointed with this film...its not horrible but in no way deserves to be even in the discussion of best original screenplays this year.
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:32 am
by Reza
Big Magilla wrote:The only thing that would cause more of a shock would be The Dark Knight Wall-E both nominated for best picture.
.....and while we are on this wretched bandwagon why don't we also add Iron Man to the best picture lineup?
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:35 pm
by The Original BJ
Original Screenplay still seems very much in play. Milk is a sure thing at the Oscars, and I think so is WALL-E. Shocked Rachel Getting Married missed, but as Mister Tee says, couldn't this be an eligibility ruling issue (much like Memento & Pulp Fiction were absent here)? It's hard to tell, though it's possible given that Jenny Lumet's a newbie screenwriter. Still, I'm a little surprised Rachel has fared so poorly this season. From the looks of the award groups, you'd think it was a star vehicle, when the film itself is decidedly NOT The Anne Hathaway Show.
The strength of Woody Allen's name alone will probably do it for Vicky Cristina, even though it's not one of his more interesting efforts. And then what? Burn After Reading seems like a fluke -- the type of comedy nominee that often makes it here but not to the Oscars. The Visitor seems more possible, but for those dreading a nomination, remember McCarthy's The Station Agent picked up a spot here but was D.O.A. at the Oscars. I'm personally quite happy for The Wrestler's recognition here, as I think it's one of the better candidates in contention; its script, however, hasn't been cited often. Happy-Go-Lucky, on the other hand, HAS done quite well with the critics' screenplay prizes (when surprise Oscar-nominees Topsy-Turvy and Vera Drake didn't); peculiar for me, given that I think Leigh's previous nominees were much stronger writing-wise than Happy-Go-Lucky. It's nice, actually, that there are quite a number of candidates that still in competition here.
On the other hand...I wouldn't at all be surprised if the WGA adapted slate made it completely to the Oscars. I think The Dark Knight will still be a question mark until Oscar morning -- you could definitely imagine the lit-loving writers' branch vetoing it for one of the Winslet films (more likely The Reader, I think.) I could also imagine a weird situation where lack of enthusiasm for other available candidates pushed Dark Knight into the screenplay race even if it's blackballed in Best Picture. Or the reverse could happen, as those populist films often cited as Best Picture precedent (Beauty and the Beast, The Fugitive) slid in without screenplay citations. Or this nod could merely be the signal that, yes, Dark Knight has across-the-board support and it'll land Picture/Director/Screenplay bids easily, much to some of our amazement. Who knows?
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:16 pm
by Mister Tee
Eric wrote:Please please please please let The Visitor roll snake eyes when it comes to Oscar nominations.
I completely agree. Nothing annoys me more than when something I think is negligible or worse starts getting touted by parts of the intelligentsia. It was the same I felt about Little Miss Sunshine: not only did I have to endure a film I didn't like getting major notice, but I had to listen to supposedly perceptive critics telling me what a cool pick it was.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:43 pm
by MovieWes
Since snake eyes is the lowest you can roll in craps, I think he obviously means zero.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:41 pm
by barrybrooks8
By snake eyes, do you mean TWO or ZERO? I am hoping for zero...
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:07 pm
by Eric
Please please please please let The Visitor roll snake eyes when it comes to Oscar nominations.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:03 pm
by jack
Mister Tee wrote:The question: is this just the populist/comedy-voting segment of WGA -- the ones who've voted for Bend It Like Beckham/Mean Girls/The Devil Wears Prada over the years -- making its to-be-replaced-by-the-Oscars gesture
I would say Burn After Reading fits this mold better than The Dark Knight.
Edited By jack on 1231362221
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:44 pm
by Big Magilla
The three that match Oscar's adapted screenplay on Oscar morning could be The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionaire with Revolutionary road and The Reader usurping Frost/Nixon and Doubt. Or instead of the usual mix of literary and stage adaptations we could have two comic book adaptations in the mix with both The Dark Knight and Iron Man nominated. The only thing that would cause more of a shock would be The Dark Knight Wall-E both nominated for best picture.