2016 Awards Season

[AshleyN]

She and Vikander are really leads, so they have screen time advantages over others in that category. There's also Winslet to consider, but there's clearly not much enthusiasm for her film beyond her and Fassbender (his first nomination, incidentally; he and Alicia both get in at the same time). I think there's more enthusiasm for Mara's film than Vikander's (it has more nominations, and more major ones), though Vikander is in two notable nominated films, so the impact of that is hard to measure.

Wasn't he nominated for 12 Years a Slave?

[Trini]

12 nominations for The Revenant and none for the bear?!?

 

Visual Effects.

 

----

About Fury Road,when was the last time an action movie got so many nominations?

[vb68]

 

Wasn't he nominated for 12 Years a Slave?

 

 

He was indeed. I remember reading that he really soured on the experience for some reason too.

Edited January 14, 2016 by vb68

[Snipsa]

I am pleased with most of these (although I'm yet to see a lot of them), but I do agree with the obvious lack of diversity.

He snub that hurts the most right now is "See you again" in best original song...

[Ms Blue Jay]

It's cool that The Weeknd from Toronto got a nomination for Best Song.   Other than that, bleh.  

 

About Fury Road,when was the last time an action movie got so many nominations?

 

crouching tiger

lotr 1-2-3
avatar and district 9 (in the same year)   - sci fi, sci fi  - 2009
inception - sci fi  - 2010
gravity - sci fi - 2013

 

Looking at my list I created from the previous page, I guess if we remove any Sci-Fi picture, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is listed as a Martial Arts film.   It's from the year 2000, admittedly, a while ago.  It was nominated for 10 Oscars!

Edited January 14, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[SeanC]

Wasn't he nominated for 12 Years a Slave?

Oops, duh. I guess that slipped my mind while thinking mainly about Lead Actor roles.

[Princess Sparkle]

He was indeed. I remember reading that he really soured on the experience for some reason too.

As I recall, I believe he didn't like the campaigning aspect of the nomination - I seem to remember some stories floating around about how he wasn't going to campaign, and didn't really like the whole process.

 

I have to say, out of all the nominations, I was weirdly happy that "Earned It" scored a nomination - even if it came from 50 Shades of Gray, it's a good song, and hopefully knocks Sam Smith out of the running (I freaking HATE that song).  I do wish See You Again could've snuck in though.  

[Athena]

As I recall, I believe he didn't like the campaigning aspect of the nomination - I seem to remember some stories floating around about how he wasn't going to campaign, and didn't really like the whole process.

 

Yes and he's not the only actor who has expressed that. All the actors have to show up and market themselves more during awards season, but I think the men are less use to it than the women. Not that all actors campaign, but there is pressure from the studios and the movie makers to push the actor out more. I really think he should have been nominated for Shame. Oh, well.

 

While I don't think he's a bad actor, Eddie Redmayne has been shown to be a big campaigner so not a surprise he's nominated again though I hoped Jordan would have gotten in there. I'm glad McAdams did.

[OakGoblinFly]

I know I'm in the minority, but I didn't care for Fury Road at all.  Most overhyped movie ever in my view.  Star Wars: Force Awakens was infinitely more enjoyable.

 

 

Can I grab a seat at your table?

 

I HATED Mad Max: Fury Road; I wasn't impressed by the plot, script, or acting.  However, I thought the use was practical effects was terrific and the cinematography was lovely.

[cpcathy]

I didn't hate it, but I thought Mad Max was pretty standard action stuff. Not Oscar worthy. Not sure why it's loved so much.

[shoregirl]

It's weird that Fifty shades of Gray can say it's a Academy Award nomine.

Edited January 14, 2016 by shoregirl

[Ms Blue Jay]

It's also the hugest Razzie nominee, which I think is stupid, because it's an average movie and in no way a horrible one, but that's the Razzies for you.  Hating what is most popular.  

[SallyAlbright]

So glad Rachel McAdams made the cut; it's not often that subtlety is rewarded. Ditto for the wonderful Charlotte Rampling. I am thrilled by the whole Best Actress group, except for Jennifer Lawrence. It seems like she gets nominated just for showing up onscreen these days, as I thought Joy was really weak and she was not very good in it. 

 

I am praying and hoping that this will finally be Leo's year, and I'd be thrilled for either Ronan or Larson to take Best Actress. In all honesty, I wish they could tie!

[methodwriter85]

So glad Rachel McAdams made the cut; it's not often that subtlety is rewarded. Ditto for the wonderful Charlotte Rampling. I am thrilled by the whole Best Actress group, except for Jennifer Lawrence. It seems like she gets nominated just for showing up onscreen these days, as I thought Joy was really weak and she was not very good in it. 

 

I am praying and hoping that this will finally be Leo's year, and I'd be thrilled for either Ronan or Larson to take Best Actress. In all honesty, I wish they could tie!

 

I really want Ronan to get the Oscar, but it was a pretty subtle, not very show-offy performance, so I'm just thrilled she got nominated.

 

This is definitely the first season I've followed in a long time where there wasn't a single sure bet in any of the major categories.

[OakGoblinFly]

I really want Ronan to get the Oscar, but it was a pretty subtle, not very show-offy performance, so I'm just thrilled she got nominated.

 

This is definitely the first season I've followed in a long time where there wasn't a single sure bet in any of the major categories.

 

 

I agree with you --- I think people confuse loud and shouty with "acting" and that's why some of the more understated performances are glossed over.

[vb68]

So Jennifer Lawrence is the youngest person to have four career nominations.  Whether they were all deserved or not, it is  a pretty amazing achievement.  she could very well be on the Meryl path with nominations.

[SeanC]

So Jennifer Lawrence is the youngest person to have four career nominations. Whether they were all deserved or not, it is a pretty amazing achievement. she could very well be on the Meryl path with nominations.

For a while it looked like Kate Winslet would be Streep-like in her Oscar nomination pacing, but she really slowed down after winning one.

Edited January 16, 2016 by SeanC

[Dejana]

I don't think Will Smith didn't get nominated because of his kids but because Concussion's reviews weren't great for an Oscar contender and it's a flop. The thing is, sometimes if feels like all the cards have to line up and it has to be an undeniable thing to get the nomination, while projects dominated by actors who are white can get more leeway. Steve Jobs flopped but got two actors in anyway. The reviews for The Danish Girl weren't extraordinary, it's not setting the box office on fire for the sort of film it is, but it got a year of hype as an Oscar movie and was carried by its pedigree. Trumbo is about Hollywood, specifically old Hollywood, which AMPAS loves rewarding. A movie about Old Hollywood is probably going to be dominated by characters who are white, unless it's about suffering minorities who didn't get a fair shake at stardom, but that makes it about racial struggles, which seem to be an Academy-approved topic for "black movies" at the Oscars, along with singer/athlete biopics.

 

I wonder if Oscar punditry has become a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way, because the "experts" spend months predicting what they think will get nominated and downplaying the chances of what they think AMPAS won't vote for, so maybe it's doing more to steer the conversation back to the status quo. Female narratives aren't seen as "important" enough to win Best Picture unless it's a "woman in a man's world" sort of thing (though I don't think that was always the case), so their chances are reduced to the Actress categories and other secondary technical things like makeup and costumes, maybe screenplay. The prognosticators were lukewarm about the odds for Carol all year long and maybe the Academy would have found it "cold" even if the experts had been predicting a Best Picture win for months. Yet, AMPAS can nominate Birdman or Tree of Life or There Will Be Blood, hardly warm/mainstream movies. Maybe Todd Haynes will have to make a movie about men to get a directing nod, the way Christopher Nolan is making a World War II movie now, after missing that Best Director nomination a couple of times.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Dejana

[tennisgurl]

 

I really want Ronan to get the Oscar, but it was a pretty subtle, not very show-offy performance, so I'm just thrilled she got nominated.

Right there with you. I thought Ronan was wonderful, and she is my choice to win. I really do not think she will (I am betting on Lawrence for the actual win. She is the new Streep after all. Awards fly to her like magnets*), but I was happy to see her at least enter the conversation. 

 

*Not to say I dislike Jennifer Lawrence. I think she is really talented, and has made a lot of good choices in her projects. I also feel like people are always looking for a new reason to hate her, so I feel for her. But I do think Hollywood is a bit too in love with her. She is a very good actress, but there are others who deserve just as much praise and love as she gets, if not more* 

[SeanC]

I don't think Will Smith didn't get nominated because of his kids but because Concussion's reviews weren't great for an Oscar contender and it's a flop. The thing is, sometimes if feels like all the cards have to line up and it has to be an undeniable thing to get the nomination, while projects dominated by actors who are white can get more leeway. 

On the specific subject of Smith, I think it's interesting by comparison that he got a Best Actor nomination in 2006 for The Pursuit of Happyness, which I'd say was overall a less-interesting performance in a less "baity" and lower-grade film than Concussion.  Maybe the difference there is that Will Smith's star shines a lot more dimly in 2016 than in 2006?

Edited January 17, 2016 by SeanC

[Dejana]

On the specific subject of Smith, I think it's interesting by comparison that he got a Best Actor nomination in 2006 for The Pursuit of Happyness, which I'd say was overall a less-interesting performance in a less "baity" and lower-grade film than Concussion.  Maybe the difference there is that Will Smith's star shines a lot more dimly in 2016 than in 2006?

 

Smith was at the peak of his movie stardom in 2006 and when the Oscar nominations were announced that year, The Pursuit of Happyness had already made $146 million (on the way to $163M domestic). If Concussion had made even half that much instead of just $33 million so far, I think Smith probably would've gotten in. The reviews are roughly on par (67% RT for Happyness vs. 63% for Concussion) but Concussion turned out not to be so daring or controversial and Happyness probably did more to pull at the heartstrings. Your average Academy voter probably felt good at the end of watching it and easily checked the ballot for that performance.

 

Now, it's true that of the five Best Actor nominees, three are from movies that have made even less than Concussion so far. Steve Jobs, while being a commercial failure, has much better reviews (85% RT) and its director is an Oscar winner, which never hurts in getting subsequent movies on the awards radar.  Ditto with The Danish Girl, also centered by a "brave" performance from last year's Best Actor in a "groundbreaking" movie. Trumbo has Walter White as a celebrated screenwriter fighting the blacklist for his creative life and legacy. They love movies about the film industry and Old Hollywood, to pat themselves on the back. Football may be America's Game, but it's not one of those areas that Oscar goes for unless it's already a big hit.

 

Movies about boxing, OTOH, have a much better history with AMPAS. I guess it's more visceral and cinematic? Michael B. Jordan won at least one critics' prize but never seemed to move beyond a long-shot contender for Best Actor. He is under 30 and Creed is technically a franchise movie; they don't have a great history with lead acting nominations. I think if WB had realized what they had in terms of critical/financial success, they would've dropped the Johnny Depp/Black Mass dream a lot sooner and given Creed/MJB/Coogler a much bigger push for a longer time, and it might have made the difference.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Dejana

[SeanC]

Creed never getting any traction outside of Stallone (the low-hanging fruit) is my biggest disappointment with this awards season (which I otherwise think produced a pretty strong slate).

 

Critics' Choice Awards results, in the season where the organization did its best to destroy its own credibility (I didn't list all the genre awards they've added over the years):

 

Picture:  Spotlight
Director:  George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road)
Actor:  Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant)
Actress:  Brie Larson (Room)
Supporting Actor:  Sylvester Stallone (Creed)
Supporting Actress:  Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl)
Young Performer:  Jacob Tremblay (Room)
Ensemble:  Spotlight
Original Screenplay:  Spotlight
Adapted Screenplay:  The Big Short
Cinematography:  The Revenant
Production Design:  Mad Max: Fury Road
Editing:  Mad Max: Fury Road
Costume Design:  Mad Max: Fury Road

Original Song:  "See You Again" (Furious 7)
Original Score:  The Hateful Eight

Hair & Makeup:  Mad Max: Fury Road
Visual Effects:  Mad Max: Fury Road
Animated Feature:  Inside Out
Foreign Language Film:  Son of Saul
Documentary:  Amy

Edited January 18, 2016 by SeanC

[Sara2009]

Right there with you. I thought Ronan was wonderful, and she is my choice to win. I really do not think she will (I am betting on Lawrence for the actual win. She is the new Streep after all. Awards fly to her like magnets*), but I was happy to see her at least enter the conversation.

*Not to say I dislike Jennifer Lawrence. I think she is really talented, and has made a lot of good choices in her projects. I also

feel like people are always looking for a new reason to hate her, so I feel for her. But I do think Hollywood is a bit too in love with her. She is a very good actress, but there are others who deserve just as much praise and love as she gets, if not more*

I think Brie Larson is actually the front runner.

[BW Manilowe]

Winner's List, London Critics Circle Film Awards:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mad-max-45-years-take-856441

[absnow54]

I'd say that after the Critic's Choice Awards, the acting front runners are falling into place. I think it's Leo and Brie's season to lose at this point. Supporting categories aren't quite a lock since Stallone isn't nominated for the SAG, but I think his narrative is strong enough to carry him through the Oscars. The only wild card I see is Supporting Actress, since Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander are in the category from here on out. Vikander managed to nab the Critic's Choice Awards, but I wonder how actors will react to two obvious leads duking it out for a supporting award.

[SeanC]

I'd say that after the Critic's Choice Awards, the acting front runners are falling into place. I think it's Leo and Brie's season to lose at this point. Supporting categories aren't quite a lock since Stallone isn't nominated for the SAG, but I think his narrative is strong enough to carry him through the Oscars. The only wild card I see is Supporting Actress, since Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander are in the category from here on out. Vikander managed to nab the Critic's Choice Awards, but I wonder how actors will react to two obvious leads duking it out for a supporting award.

SAG Supporting Actor is interesting because the category has only 2/5 overlap with Oscar, and is missing Stallone, who, as you note, increasingly looks like a frontrunner.  So do the voters actively try to steer the Oscar conversation toward one of the two overlap nominees (Rylance and Bale), or does this inspire them to just give the award to somebody who isn't in contention at all?  If the former, Rylance has been collecting all the critics' awards; Bale is the bigger star and in the film that's hotter at the moment (though The Revenant seems to have usurped its narrative of the film on the rise).

Edited January 18, 2016 by SeanC

[BW Manilowe]

SAG Supporting Actor is interesting because the category has only 2/5 overlap with Oscar, and is missing Stallone, who, as you note, increasingly looks like a frontrunner. So do the voters actively try to steer the Oscar conversation toward one of the two overlap nominees (Rylance and Bale), or does this inspire them to just give the award to somebody who isn't in contention at all? If the former, Rylance has been collecting all the critics' awards; Bale is the bigger star and in the film that's hotter at the moment (though The Revenant seems to have usurped its narrative of the film on the rise).

Christian Bale just won for Supporting Actor within the last few years, for The Fighter. Would they give him another so soon?

[SeanC]

Christian Bale just won for Supporting Actor within the last few years, for The Fighter. Would they give him another so soon?

There's only been one repeat acting winner on the male side at SAG (Daniel Day-Lewis, who has won three times), compared to four on the female side, but, for instance, Renee Zellweger won back-to-back awards in 2002-2003 there.  If they like you, it wont stop them, and five years is a pretty decent gap.

Edited January 18, 2016 by SeanC

[millennium]

I didn't hate it, but I thought Mad Max was pretty standard action stuff. Not Oscar worthy. Not sure why it's loved so much.

 

Ditto this.   It was essentially a remake of The Road Warrior with more modern -- but not better -- effects.   Nothing special at all.

[Dejana]

Statement from Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs:

 

I’d like to acknowledge the wonderful work of this year’s nominees.  While we celebrate their extraordinary achievements, I am both heartbroken and frustrated about the lack of inclusion. This is a difficult but important conversation, and it’s time for big changes. The Academy is taking dramatic steps to alter the makeup of our membership.  In the coming days and weeks we will conduct a review of our membership recruitment in order to bring about much-needed diversity in our 2016 class and beyond.

 

As many of you know, we have implemented changes to diversify our membership in the last four years. But the change is not coming as fast as we would like.  We need to do more, and better and more quickly.

 

This isn’t unprecedented for the Academy. In the ‘60s and ‘70s it was about recruiting younger members to stay vital and relevant. In 2016, the mandate is inclusion in all of its facets: gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. We recognize the very real concerns of our community, and I so appreciate all of you who have reached out to me in our effort to move forward together.

[scarynikki12]

I've always felt that anyone who gets nominated for an Oscar automatically gets invited to join the Academy.  They can turn it down if they want but it would be one simple way to recruit new members.  It doesn't come without problems, of course, as existing members would no doubt use their nominating votes as an exclusionary tool (though I'm sure they do it already, just not with membership in mind).  It also wouldn't solve the problem of the lack of diversity behind the scenes which limits those eligible for the award in the first place, but members are already often invited without being nominated so that wouldn't have to change.

[xaxat]

Trumbo has Walter White as a celebrated screenwriter fighting the blacklist for his creative life and legacy. They love movies about the film industry and Old Hollywood, to pat themselves on the back.

 

So you're saying I should buy futures options on Hail Caesar for next year's Oscar nominations?  

[Dejana]

So you're saying I should buy futures options on Hail Caesar for next year's Oscar nominations?  

 

IDK.... the Academy loves Hollywood and the Coens, but a February release date is so early for a potential nominee. Hail, Caesar! doesn't have a busted Oscar bait history: you know, first scheduled to come out in time to make the critics' lists, then the poor test screening reports leak, so the movie gets shuffled to Jan/Feb or worse, late August/Labor Day weekend. It's opening the Berlin Film Festival so maybe it's not a turkey but the timing allows it to be a well-regarded comedy rather than something that's not quite [whatever] enough for the Oscars.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Dejana

[SeanC]

The Coens' comedies are typically much dicier Oscar prospects than their dramas, too.

[yourstruly]

Lifetime Oscar voting rights changed...

 

 

Beginning later this year, each new member’s voting status will last 10 years, and will be renewed if that new member has been active in motion pictures during that decade.  In addition, members will receive lifetime voting rights after three ten-year terms; or if they have won or been nominated for an Academy Award.  We will apply these same standards retroactively to current members.  In other words, if a current member has not been active in the last 10 years they can still qualify by meeting the other criteria.  Those who do not qualify for active status will be moved to emeritus status.  Emeritus members do not pay dues but enjoy all the privileges of membership, except voting.  This will not affect voting for this year’s Oscars.

 

This seems fair and like a good way to get rid of some of the geriatric dead weight that gets a lot of the blame for some of the stranger/dicier/more out of touch Oscar choices in recent memory.

 

Another way to resolve this would be to...just not care about the Oscars so much? It's subjective and it's obvious that they are a bit challenged when it comes to judging quality. So stop making it the end all be all. JMHO.

[SeanC]

Thoughts on some of the categories:

 

Best Director:  I actually am coming around to the idea that Miller could actually win this; his main competition would seem to be Inarritu, but he won last year and back-to-back wins are incredibly rare -- only twice has it happened (John Ford, 1940-1941; and Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1949-1950).  

 

Best Actor:  Honestly, I can't see how any of these guys could beat Leo.  Only Damon is representing a popular film overall, and neither he nor any of the others have any sort of narrative going for them.

 

Best Actress:  Not that I think Rampling had much chance anyway, but boy did she self-destruct (unless it works as a covert appeal to voters who resent the implication that their nomination choices are wrong).  This has been widely framed as Larson v. Ronan, and I think that's probably still true, with Larson starting to pull away.  Room and Brooklyn have three of the same nominations (Picture, Actress, Adapted Screenplay), with the former also getting Director, which lends it the appearance of greater strength.  I think Larson has the role advantage here; they're both tearjerker parts, but Room is a much more dramatic film.

 

Best Supporting Actor:  Stallone seems like the favourite here, though I know some Oscarologists like Anne Thompson think that his HFPA flub hurt him significantly.  If not him, I think it probably goes to Ruffalo -- well-liked actor in a well-liked film, and he's got the showiest part in the ensemble.

 

Best Supporting Actress:  The biggest question mark still (as I posted a while ago).  McAdams is the only nominee representing a BP nominee, and she has such a low-key part that I'm not sure it would be very high on the list of what Spotlight admirers would vote for.  Mara is a co-lead in a film that missed BP, somewhat controversially; does Carol's support concentrate on her?  Or does Vikander, another co-lead, win for having such a great year overall?  And there's Winslet, who I guess would be the safe veteran choice; but she doesn't really feel like she has much career momentum for a second Oscar.

 

Original Screenplay:  I think this is Spotlight's guaranteed win, even if it doesn't take Picture.  It's the sort of film that, when people are trying to assess what about it they think is award-worthy, the writing will top the list, moreso than acting, directing, or any other aspect of the production.  None of the other nominees seem like particularly strong contenders for a win (not a measure of quality, mind you).

 

Adapted Screenplay:  Crammed with four Best Picture nominees and one near-miss that actually has more nominations than a few of the BP nominees, I don't quite know what to predict here.  If you consider The Big Short one of the three notable BP contenders (along with Spotlight and The Revenant), then it's got this category to itself.  If Room built more momentum I could see a case for Donoghue winning here, as the author adapting her own work for the screen.

Edited January 23, 2016 by SeanC

[BW Manilowe]

An article discussing the changes the Academy plans to make to encourage more diversity. Some of the longstanding members speak out.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/academys-new-voting-rules-raise-858388?utm_source=twitter

[yourstruly]

 

Best Supporting Actress:  The biggest question mark still (as I posted a while ago).

I totally think Jennifer Jason Leigh will win this. She is a revered actress (other actors seem to bow down to her) who had never been nominated before, to the point that people were incredulous about it. She's been working *forever*. She comes from the movie industry and her parents are well known. She got praised for her performance and Tarantino always gives actors something to chew on. Category fraud issues for a couple of the other nominees. McAdams's role is not that big or showy (sadly that will hurt her). Winslet already has one. 

 

Just my worthless prediction...

[SeanC]

I totally think Jennifer Jason Leigh will win this. She is a revered actress (other actors seem to bow down to her) who had never been nominated before, to the point that people were incredulous about it. She's been working *forever*. She comes from the movie industry and her parents are well known. She got praised for her performance and Tarantino always gives actors something to chew on. Category fraud issues for a couple of the other nominees. McAdams's role is not that big or showy (sadly that will hurt her). Winslet already has one. 

I think it's pretty clear by this point that people in the Academy aren't bothered by category fraud.  Otherwise, it's a plausible prediction.  The film as a whole seems to lack enthusiasm, but actors have won before under those circumstances.

[absnow54]

I think the SAGs will decide the front runner for Supporting Actress. I think Alicia Vikander has the edge right now because the Critics Choice Awards are a better indicator than the Golden Globes, but I feel like actors are most likely to call category fraud for an acting category, and they have the strongest vote in the academy.

[Ruby25]

So The Big Short won the PGA tonight. This is huge, because the Best Picture winner has been the PGA winner ever since they started using the same ballot 7 years ago.

 

This means The Big Short is definitely the frontrunner for Best Picture now. We'll have to see if it will win SAG and DGA, but if anyone's into predicting, I'd start betting on The Big Short to win Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay and Editing. For sure.

[Slade347]

Outside of Best Actor, I'd stay as far away from betting on this year's awards as possible. 

[sweetcookieface]

I've seen all the Best Picture nominations save two - the Revenant (which I'm dying to see) and Bridge of Spies (which I have zero interest in seeing) - and I feel really underwhelmed by the nominations. Of the movies I've seen, here are my impressions:

 

• The Big Short: Entertaining enough, but didn't find it to be a particularly standout film; acting was a bit hammy and it's hard to get excited about a movie where the heroes are a bunch of guys who basically profited off the financial crisis.
• Brooklyn: Sweet movie with a great performance by Saoirse. It felt very old-fashioned/throwbacky to me.
• Mad Max: Fury Road: I'm one of those who doesn't get why people are so over the moon with this. The plot and acting were meh (and I'll admit I was kind of grossed out by some of the characters), but I do think the action sequences and cinematography were incredible.
• The Martian: Another solid, but not excellent film. That said, it felt very much like the sort of movie the Academy likes to honor - nice visuals, feel-good story, and star-studded cast. I found the dialogue and "comedy" (like the ABBA obsession) really cheesy, and thought Matt Damon was good, but nothing special.
• Room: Really devastating, without being over-the-top or sentimental. The two lead performances are incredible. This might be my favorite of the Oscar-nominated movies I've seen so far, but it has the disadvantage of feeling like a "small" film.
• Spotlight: I liked this a lot more than I expected - I'm not usually into films with a more procedural feel, but I found the story gripping. Not a flashy film (like Brooklyn, it has a more throwback feel), but it was buoyed by great plotting and a strong performance. I have to say, though, I'm mystified by Rachel McAdams' nomination - I thought she was serviceable at best (even borderline bad); my personal favorite performances were Michael Keaton and Liev Schrieber (both very understated), followed by Stanley Tucci.

 

I'm trying to think of other movies that I thought were better than some of the Oscar-nominated ones. The main one that comes to mind is Sicario, which I thought was a really tense, beautifully shot and complex thriller. Other possible contenders for me are Ex Machina, Beasts of No Nation and Star Wars (and this is from someone who's not a big SW fan).

[BW Manilowe]

Chris Rock is still hosting the Oscars, despite recent calls for him to boycott over the diversity issue, as a POC. He's currently rewriting the show to include comments on the diversity/#OscarsSoWhite issue.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/chris-rock-oscars-diversity-1201687097/

[Rick Kitchen]

SNL did a skit about the all-white acting nominations, and then at the end took a jab at the all-male directing nominations.

 

[Shannon L.]

I think this Academy member has some good ideas:

 

Oscar Voter: Academy Diversity Efforts Are Laudable But Could Go Further (Guest Column)

[vibeology]

The amazing thing about the SNL skit is I was actually getting into the Thurgood Marshall. Someone needs to make that movie (so it can be ignored by the academy.) Red Line, too, sounds like a great idea. I'm sure it'd star Emma Stone as the plucky paralegal who saves the day or something.

 

Like many have been saying, making changes to the Academy is a great first start but it won't make much difference until there is more diversity in film and filmmaking. How many women are in film school learning about sound editing or cinematography? How many people of colour? Who develops projects? Who greenlights them? Until there are vast changes, the progress every awards season will still seem slow.

 

And SNL is actually a pretty good model. A few years ago they had a white guy playing Obama. People complained and the complaints forced Lorne to hire a couple of on air poc and a few other minority writers. Then Leslie, a writer, worked her way into the cast. Now a third of their on-air talent is black. (Could they still use more diversity, yes. No Latino representation really stands out with the election coming up for example, and SNL has only ever had two cast members of Asian decent so its not like there still isn't room to grow.) Changes can be made and can be made quickly when someone wants to make a change. If one studio made a point of greenlighting and properly backing/promoting just a few more movies that feature stories told by and told about minorities it would make a huge difference in terms of awards representation.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Fred Armisen is Asian, Latino, and white, but I get your point.  Also, to add, so far, they haven't done yellowface this year, but it was definitely a regular thing in past recent years.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ruby25]

I was thinking that too- SNL doing a skit like that when just two years or so ago they were SLAMMED for not having minority cast members, and Lorne finally decided to cop to the criticism (he was criticized for this for decades and never gave a damn until social media made stuff like this too loud to ignore). I can't believe they went so long having Fred Armisen play Obama and never bothering to think they should maybe hire an African-American actor for the job.

 

So yeah, things can change fast- but I still continue to believe that the problem lies less with the Academy specifically than with the movies being made and the studios supporting them. The progress that was happening in the last decade and the fact that it's now going backward speaks to that, imo. But I agree with the changes being made and frankly think it was past time to do this anyway, even without all this backlash. The age of the members is a problem.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Ruby25

[SeanC]

The Revenant isn't up for SAG's Ensemble Award, so this should be between The Big Short and Spotlight.  If Spotlight loses this, I think that really leaves only The Revenant with a chance to upset The Big Short.