The Annual Academy Awards - General Discussion

[Bruinsfan]

Yes. While I generally prefer to see films I'm interested in on an actual big screen in a cinema, I like the indies and art house films also having venues (and revenue streams) that don't pit them directly in competition against big budget blockbusters for a limited number of screens.

[LennieBriscoe]

Emmy-winning proof that another actress could, indeed, be superb as Judy Garland. Judy Davis:

 

[blackwing]

Late to the party re “Parasite” but I finally watched it.  I thought it was a good movie overall.  I thought it was going to be a stark examination of class warfare, the traditional haves vs have nots.  I was prepared to watch the have nots claw their way to the top and cheer them on.   And then... midway through, it just got really weird.   Was not prepared for that at all.  This is definitely a Best Picture unlike any other winner.

I think my biggest problem with the movie is that I didn’t find any of the characters particularly sympathetic.  I liked the poor family until all the nastiness to get into the rich family’s lives began.  I found the rich family to be vapid, particularly the scene where rich wife is on her phone the whole time while shopping and just puts items into the cart while poor dad walks a few paces behind her like a modern day slave.  Part of my issue is that there wasn’t much background on how they got to be so rich, unless I missed it.  Does the husband work really really hard?  Or did they inherit it all?   I didn’t even feel much sympathy for the old housekeeper, who was deceiving her employer.

In the end, I found myself feeling empty and wanting more of a satisfying resolution.

I also wish that if the Academy had considered this movie to be so worthy of Best Picture, that a few of the actors would have been nominated.  I would have nominated Poor Son, Rich Wife and Poor Dad.  Why is it so hard for Asian actors to get nominated for acting awards at the Oscars?  So few and far in between.   Just like with Crouching Tiger and The Last Emperor where the movies were deemed among the best of the year but no recognition at all for the actors.
 

For sure, this movie benefited from the backlash against the almost entirely white slate of acting nominees   It’s like Hollywood was protesting a bit too much   “See we aren’t racist!  We will name a Korean film as Best Picture and make history!”

Who was the lady that spoke who got the lights shut off on her until the audience clamored to let her speak?  Was that a producer or an actress?  I hadn’t seen the film before the ceremony so now trying to picture her face again, was it the old housekeeper?

[Milburn Stone]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

I think my biggest problem with the movie is that I didn’t find any of the characters particularly sympathetic.  I liked the poor family until all the nastiness to get into the rich family’s lives began.  I found the rich family to be vapid...

I know what you mean. I think it's inherent in the movie's title, and the puzzle it presents. Are the poor family the parasites because they're living off the rich people when they take over their house? Or are the rich people the parasites, feeding off the labor of the poor? You can make an argument for either point of view, and I think the movie's title is meant to make us consider that you can make an argument for either point of view.

However, that's an intellectual reason to admire the movie. Not an emotional one. The movie left me cold as well.

[ProudMary]

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

Who was the lady that spoke who got the lights shut off on her until the audience clamored to let her speak?  Was that a producer or an actress?  I hadn’t seen the film before the ceremony so now trying to picture her face again, was it the old housekeeper?

Miky Lee, who was an Executive Producer on Parasite.
From 'Parasite' to BTS: Meet the Most Important Mogul in South Korean Entertainment

Edited February 19, 2020 by ProudMary

[proserpina65]

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 5:08 PM, TattleTeeny said:

What was incoherent about Joaquin's--was it how he said it? I didn't watch the show last night but I read the transcription, and the words/sentences themselves made sense to me. 

A lot of it was in the delivery, but also in how disconnected the various parts of it were.

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 5:45 PM, slowpoked said:

I find the Academy's love and hate affair with Netflix interesting. I think the Academy should like it that Netflix is participating, because they're so willing to drop the BIG bucks during awards campaigning. And having huge money spent can only eventually benefit the Academy itself.

My problem with Netflix stuff being nominated for Oscars is the argument that their stuff should be nominated for Emmys because it's television.  But it's also movies.  If Netflix is television, then their movies shouldn't be eligible for Oscars because they've run on tv.  Unless they run the movies in theaters first so they do qualify?  I guess I'm just confused about how they decide which is which.  Obviously multi-part stuff would count as television but still, confusing to me.

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 6:07 PM, blackwing said:

I’m curious about when the decision to have these young, mostly minority, actors introduce themselves and the presenters was made.  The cynic in me says it was after the nominations were announced and there was backlash about the almost entirely white acting nominees.  “See we do care about young minority actors!”   Eh.  I thought it seemed a bit too obvious.  Like they were checking off boxes.  “We need an Asian... Kelly Marie Tran!  We need a Hispanic... Anthony Ramos!  We need a black person... Zazie Beetz!”

Just seemed really tacked on.  At least when the announcer announced presenters, he would say what they were known for.  I had no idea who most of these people were, and in some cases they said their name so quickly I didn’t even catch it so couldn’t even Wikipedia them if I wanted to.

They pretty much had to introduce themselves to me because I had no idea who most of them were.  And still don't know what they did.  Hell, I only knew George Mackay because I've seen 1917.

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 6:55 PM, rmontro said:

As for Eilish, the first time I saw her, I thought why is she singing like that?  She doesn't project, it's almost a whisper.  But once you get used to the way she sings, then... you get used to the style, I guess.  It fits her emo image, or whatever it is.  At least it's not the same as everyone else.

For me, it wasn't her style of singing that was the problem.  It was her inability to stay on-key.

[slowpoked]

21 hours ago, blackwing said:

Does the husband work really really hard?  Or did they inherit it all?

The husband was the CEO of an IT company - that's his company where Mr. Kim picked him up. There were also shots of newspaper articles displayed at home where he was featured as a hotshot CEO.

As for the wife, who knows. Either she married rich, or was a trust fund baby. She gave off the vibe to me that it was the latter, due to her quip of "I haven't been in the subway in ages..."

22 hours ago, blackwing said:

I would have nominated Poor Son, Rich Wife and Poor Dad.

This is my feeling as well. It was a great ensemble, but Mr. Kim and Mrs. Park stood out especially.

As much as a non-English film finally broke through the biggest award, Asian actors still cannot break through the acting categories at all. When was the last time an Asian actor got nominated? (and good God, don't say Hailee Steinfeld)

[proserpina65]

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 8:09 PM, Nordly Beaumont said:

Made sense to me, too. It didn't seem off the cuff to me, I think he said what he wanted to and planned to say.

He may have, but it was incredibly poorly thought out and badly delivered.  It was a rambling mess.

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 8:30 PM, paramitch said:

Again, which I found really upsetting that the camera people couldn't find native American actor Wes Studi for his moment after his fucking honorary Oscar (or fellow honoree Geena Davis).

Agreed, and I was pissed that neither award was given during the ceremony like they used to be.  I'd rather have watched them receive honorary Oscars than any of the best song performances (minus Eminem who was awesome) and whatever that mess was that Maya Rudolph and Kristin Wiig were doing.

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 8:30 PM, paramitch said:

I'm all in favor of am American or female Bond

Hell to the no from on either one.  Of course, I'm one of those "Idris Elba or nobody!" people, so . . .

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 8:30 PM, paramitch said:

love that you brought these up. I adore Renee as Bridget (she's absolutely wonderful).

I thought she was okay but not great as Bridget.  Part of that was because I'd pictured someone else when I read the book, though (Patsy Kensit to be specific) so that definitely colored my opinion of her performance.

On ‎02‎/‎11‎/‎2020 at 12:01 AM, Crs97 said:

I didn’t find his BAFTA speech rambling at all.  He said he was honored, but conflicted to receive the award because the lack of diversity in nominees made it clear to POC that they aren’t welcome.  He said he is part of the problem for not requiring inclusion clauses in his contracts, and it is the responsibility of the people benefiting from systemic racism to bring it down.  It was a beautiful speech IMO.

Here it is

I saw it at the time and found it rambling.  Not as bad as his speech at the Oscars but only marginally better.

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 3:16 PM, aradia22 said:

loved Sandra Oh's gown. It's doing a lot but it's doing it successfully. It's polished and it commits. 

I thought it swallowed her up.  And made her look like she was wearing something she'd found in Grandma's attic.  To each, their own.

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 8:44 AM, Milburn Stone said:

Any pauses and body language and ums and ahhs uttered were mere distractions.

But how it's delivered is part of any speech.  It's not just the words on a page.

Now, because I don't want to become that person, I'll leave my thoughts on Joaquim Phoenix's speech there.

On ‎02‎/‎15‎/‎2020 at 5:01 AM, paramitch said:

I was so thrilled Brad thanked the stuntpeople -- I'm a huge supporter of the Academy adding stunt categories, and it's way way past overdue. Stunt persons make the impossible look possible. They do things that could get them killed to make the stars look good (and plenty have died doing so). So many great stunts through the decades are legendary. It needs an Oscar category.

Yes, if any category deserves to be added to the Oscars, it's stunt work.

On ‎02‎/‎15‎/‎2020 at 5:01 AM, paramitch said:

Charlize Theron is basically bathing in the magical sacrificial blood of a thousands virgins at this point (along with Keanu Reeves), because she just continues to look so fresh and amazing. And I love that when awards season comes out, she just crops her hair down to a few inches and still manages to look like this is not the most difficult look in creation to carry off as flawlessly as she does.

Yep, she has to be.

[Bruinsfan]

Not having seen Parasite yet I can't comment on its actors' performances. But, for example, I loved 1917 and thought it a worthy Best Picture contender without feeling that George McKay or anyone else in the cast was particularly slighted by not getting an acting nomination.

I do think Michelle Yeoh not at least being nominated as Best Actress for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a travesty. Hers was my favorite film performance that year, full stop.

[slowpoked]

1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

I do think Michelle Yeoh not at least being nominated as Best Actress for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a travesty. Hers was my favorite film performance that year, full stop.

Ugh, another big miss by the Academy. And that was the year that Julia Roberts won over Ellen Burstyn. Just travesty all around.

Even if CTHD committed some kind of category fraud and tried to slip Michelle Yeoh in the Supporting Category, I thought her performance should still have had a stronger chance over someone like Judi Dench. 

I was hoping she would have a fighting chance for CRA, but also not meant to be. 

[rmontro]

8 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

For me, it wasn't her style of singing that was the problem.  It was her inability to stay on-key.

Interesting.  I'm a big Beatles fan, and I thought she did a good job with it.  Surprisingly good, considering her age, and her image.  I think she falls more into the artist category than the straight singer category.

[proserpina65]

On ‎02‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 9:28 PM, rmontro said:

Interesting.  I'm a big Beatles fan, and I thought she did a good job with it.  Surprisingly good, considering her age, and her image.  I think she falls more into the artist category than the straight singer category.

Really?  On my tv she sounded terrible, and it wasn't the tv.  I'm not a Beatles fan, nor do I particularly like that song - maybe that makes a difference?

[GHScorpiosRule]

18 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Really?  On my tv she sounded terrible, and it wasn't the tv.  I'm not a Beatles fan, nor do I particularly like that song - maybe that makes a difference?

No it doesn't. Because I AM a Beatles fan, a Sir Paul McCartney fan, and I LOVE This song. And she did a horrible rendition of it. Like I posted up thread, she looked like she was gritting her teeth when was singing this.

No one but Sir Paul should sing this song. Yes, I said it.

[ShadowHunter]

The Oscars have been pushed back to April 25th next year because of Covid. Funny for years now I have heard people saying they wish the Oscars would be later in the year. It has I just wish it was for a different reason. 

[ProudMary]

From Variety:

Oscars Announce New Inclusion Requirements for Best Picture Eligibility
 

Quote

Today, as part of the Academy Aperture 2025 initiative, AMPAS announced new representation and inclusion standards in order to be eligible in the best picture category.

For the 94th and 95th Oscars ceremonies, scheduled for 2022 and 2023, a film will submit a confidential Academy Inclusion Standards form to be considered for best picture. Beginning in 2024, for the 96th Oscars, a film submitting for best picture will need to meet the inclusion thresholds by meeting two of the four standards.

Full representation standards are at the link.

[Milburn Stone]

11 hours ago, ProudMary said:

From Variety:

Oscars Announce New Inclusion Requirements for Best Picture Eligibility
 

Full representation standards are at the link.

Interesting. I've now read through the article. My first impulse was to think this is a good thing, and I haven't changed my mind about that. But as I got into the details, I saw how easy it is to satisfy the guidelines--maybe too easy. This is because "woman" counts as meeting the goal, and so many behind-the-camera jobs have been occupied by women since the beginning of film! Margaret Booth had her name as film editor on practically every MGM movie of the Golden Age. Most casting directors (in my experience) are women. And wardrobe, costume design, on and on. This is not to say that women directors have been given equal opportunity for all those years, but your director doesn't have to be a woman to meet the guidelines. I imagine every producer in Hollywood breathing a sigh of relief as he or she reads through the standards: "Yep, already got that, check, already got that, check...Hey, we don't have to change a thing!"

[blackwing]

On 9/9/2020 at 9:46 AM, Milburn Stone said:

Interesting. I've now read through the article. My first impulse was to think this is a good thing, and I haven't changed my mind about that. But as I got into the details, I saw how easy it is to satisfy the guidelines--maybe too easy. This is because "woman" counts as meeting the goal, and so many behind-the-camera jobs have been occupied by women since the beginning of film! Margaret Booth had her name as film editor on practically every MGM movie of the Golden Age. Most casting directors (in my experience) are women. And wardrobe, costume design, on and on. This is not to say that women directors have been given equal opportunity for all those years, but your director doesn't have to be a woman to meet the guidelines. I imagine every producer in Hollywood breathing a sigh of relief as he or she reads through the standards: "Yep, already got that, check, already got that, check...Hey, we don't have to change a thing!"

Agreed... it's just lip service.  A film only has to meet 2 of the 4 standards.  Standard A merely requires just one supporting actor to be a minority.  I imagine most movies could meet that.  But what's going to be the definition of "supporting"?  Kelly Marie Tran in "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker".  She was clearly a supporting character in #7, but in #9?  Arguably a glorified extra.  And how are they going to determine who is a minority?  Would Oscar Isaac qualify?  He's Guatemalan but passes for white to the point where many of his roles are apparently white characters (based on their names).  What about someone like the Tilly sisters?  Half-Chinese but look almost entirely white and almost always cast in white roles.  Or someone like (ugh) Hailee Steinfeld, one is one-EIGHTH Filipino but somehow always seems to get included in a list of "Asian Academy Award winners and nominees".  I hope there is a strict look at this requirement.  Since the whole point of this inclusion standard is to try and ensure that someone who looks like Constance Wu is given a lead or supporting role because someone who looks like her has historically had a harder time getting cast, as opposed to someone who looks like Hailee Steinfeld.

Standard B - female costume designer and gay male minority hairstylist or makeup artist, or six minority crew members.  Just seems very easy to meet the requirements.

[Milburn Stone]

Indeed. Anyone who's even tempted to argue against these guidelines on the basis that they're too binding upon the creative process, or not "meritocratic" enough, should know that 99.9% of all movies made in the last 50 years would meet them!

The Academy found the perfect way to appear to be in favor of more diversity while not doing anything to achieve it.

[ProudMary]

3 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Indeed. Anyone who's even tempted to argue against these guidelines on the basis that they're too binding upon the creative process, or not "meritocratic" enough, should know that 99.9% of all movies made in the last 50 years would meet them!

The Academy found the perfect way to appear to be in favor of more diversity while not doing anything to achieve it.

Agreed. While in the right direction, this is only a baby step.
I haven't checked back since Tuesday when I first posted the article, but the comments on Variety's FB page about the article at that point were 90% white men complaining about the stifling of creativity. I had to back away.

[Bruinsfan]

As we all know, the original vision for that eleventy-first action movie starring Liam Neeson or Marky Mark will be ruined if the production is forced to hire a black person or woman to work as a grip or do sound checks rather than the white male candidate whose work will elevate it from schlock to a blockbuster masterpiece.

RUINED, I SAY!

[Andrew Wiggin]

Yeah better make a Movie with a Agenda then a good Movie.

1917 no Chance for a Best Film Oscar now,The Godfather nope not diverse enough ....

Yeah great way to make the best Film Oscar useless.

So if a Film wins with this Criterias anybody will think did he win because he was the Best Film or he got it because he got all Checkboxes ^^

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Andrew Wiggin

[KatWay]

3 hours ago, Andrew Wiggin said:

Yeah better make a Movie with a Agenda then a good Movie.

1917 no Chance for a Best Film Oscar now,The Godfather nope not diverse enough ....

Yeah great way to make the best Film Oscar useless.

So if a Film wins with this Criterias anybody will think did he win because he was the Best Film or he got it because he got all Checkboxes ^^

 

 

 

 

 

both those films could still easily win if only 2 of 4 standards are met, and 3 of the standards are pretty much meant to include any minorities, women or people identifying as LGBTQ working for you in a range of professions. And you only need a few of those, like literally 3 people for some standards. That's barely anything for a big movie set.

Honestly if you manage to have only white men working for your movie in every single capacity, that's almost dedication.

[Andrew Wiggin]

So you say its no Problem to hold those Standarts ,way do you need them ? I dont think Hollywood is that Racist or conservative so that is the reason there are this "underepresentations" ?

Quotas never solve a Problem.

Because if there are quotas nobody knows if you are there because of them or your Talent.

 

 

[KatWay]

56 minutes ago, Andrew Wiggin said:

So you say its no Problem to hold those Standarts ,way do you need them ? I dont think Hollywood is that Racist or conservative so that is the reason there are this "underepresentations" ?

Quotas never solve a Problem.

Because if there are quotas nobody knows if you are there because of them or your Talent.

 

 

it's an answer to the backlash, they can say they did something while actually doing very little

don't worry, all those traditional movies will still get made. All you need is a female head of make-up and a black intern (simplified but you get the idea). Quotas aren't all bad. People tend to hire who they know and who they relate to, research and experience have shown. Without getting a foot in the door, people who don't have those connections are less likely to gain experience needed for the next level position etc.

[NUguy514]

9 hours ago, Andrew Wiggin said:

Yeah better make a Movie with a Agenda then a good Movie.

1917 no Chance for a Best Film Oscar now,The Godfather nope not diverse enough ....

Yeah great way to make the best Film Oscar useless.

So if a Film wins with this Criterias anybody will think did he win because he was the Best Film or he got it because he got all Checkboxes ^^

Don't worry, there will still be all the opportunities for straight, white men to make all the films they want to make.

[Irlandesa]

Quotas often don't solve the issues because sometimes the discrimination runs so deep.  It's why quotas like "dedication to having half of the directors of a TV series be women or people of color" make producers nervous.  It's not that they are necessarily opposed to hiring those creatives but because they fear the candidate pool is much smaller compared to the candidate pool made up of while men in those creative positions.

But the candidate pool discrepancy is not due to the fact that white men are just so much more talented and therefore, there are more of them working; it's often due to who is given the opportunity to develop those skills.  

That's why Ryan Murphy's mentorship program is a good idea.  It helps develop a diverse talent pool people can turn to and the quotas challenge producers to avoid falling into habits of just hiring people they know or who are like them.

But these rules don't really work to address improvement of diversity in areas where there are discrepancies as there are already departments like hair, makeup and wardrobe which tend to have more women and gay men in it than other areas of film. 

These rules basically codify the bare minimum which studio movies do anyway.  The only people who could be at a disadvantage is with very small indie movies. 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Irlandesa

[Milburn Stone]

3 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

These rules basically codify the bare minimum which studio movies do anyway.  The only people who could be at a disadvantage is with very small indie movies. 

It would pretty much have to be a small indie movie in which one white guy did everything behind the camera and the plot was about a charter flight of white supremacists going to a KKK convention when their plane goes down in the middle of the desert. 

[Andrew Wiggin]

3 hours ago, NUguy514 said:

Don't worry, there will still be all the opportunities for straight, white men to make all the films they want to make.

It has nothing to do with the sexuality of the Filmmaker.

Make good Films nobody cares about the Sex of the Characters ,we are not in the 60tes .

But i dont need to know the sexual Preference of a Character in a Actionmovie or a romance Movie only if its the Maincharacter .

If its essential to the plot the Preference is ok but tell me way do i need to know if a secondary Character is gay trans etc ? Nobody cares about them.

I dont care about the Race or Gender of a Character only if its a good Character thats PRIMARY and it should always bin.

I loved Blade i didnt care about his race only that he was a fucking Cool Motherfucker.

That is the ONLY way to get inclusion make compeling Character ,dont push a agenda nobody likes that.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by Andrew Wiggin

[sadiegirl]

8 hours ago, Andrew Wiggin said:

So you say its no Problem to hold those Standarts ,way do you need them ? I dont think Hollywood is that Racist or conservative so that is the reason there are this "underepresentations" ?

Quotas never solve a Problem.

Because if there are quotas nobody knows if you are there because of them or your Talent.

 

 

Right. Because until now, jobs went to the most qualified and talented people. It's just a coincidence that 99% went to white males. /s

[NUguy514]

3 hours ago, Andrew Wiggin said:

It has nothing to do with the sexuality of the Filmmaker.

Make good Films nobody cares about the Sex of the Characters ,we are not in the 60tes .

But i dont need to know the sexual Preference of a Character in a Actionmovie or a romance Movie only if its the Maincharacter .

If its essential to the plot the Preference is ok but tell me way do i need to know if a secondary Character is gay trans etc ? Nobody cares about them.

I dont care about the Race or Gender of a Character only if its a good Character thats PRIMARY and it should always bin.

I loved Blade i didnt care about his race only that he was a fucking Cool Motherfucker.

That is the ONLY way to get inclusion make compeling Character ,dont push a agenda nobody likes that.

[blackwing]

15 hours ago, Andrew Wiggin said:

It has nothing to do with the sexuality of the Filmmaker.

Make good Films nobody cares about the Sex of the Characters ,we are not in the 60tes .

But i dont need to know the sexual Preference of a Character in a Actionmovie or a romance Movie only if its the Maincharacter .

If its essential to the plot the Preference is ok but tell me way do i need to know if a secondary Character is gay trans etc ? Nobody cares about them.

I dont care about the Race or Gender of a Character only if its a good Character thats PRIMARY and it should always bin.

I loved Blade i didnt care about his race only that he was a fucking Cool Motherfucker.

That is the ONLY way to get inclusion make compeling Character ,dont push a agenda nobody likes that.

 

 

You're only talking about Standard A.

The other Standards are still fairly easy to meet.  And the whole point is to try and help women and minorities get the opportunity to be involved in the production of a movie.

Even then, it's a step in the right direction, so these requirements are very easy to meet.  And I agree with Milburn Stone up above... now it is easy for the Academy to say they took steps to ensure diversity in Hollywood both in front of and behind the camera, while not having actually done anything about it.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Thinking about this change I don't think I care because I don't really care about the Oscars. But it will be interesting to see what happens the first time a movie generally believed to be a best of the year thing, isn't able to get a nomination because they don't meet the requirements.

Also would be interesting if other awards tried the same thing. Would you get something like "Sorry Radiohead, no grammy for you guys because your band is all white dudes, and your write all your own music and your producer is a white guy. Maybe do some cover songs on the next album".

[Milburn Stone]

On 9/15/2020 at 7:45 AM, Kel Varnsen said:

Thinking about this change I don't think I care because I don't really care about the Oscars. But it will be interesting to see what happens the first time a movie generally believed to be a best of the year thing, isn't able to get a nomination because they don't meet the requirements.

A) You'd have to really try hard to fail to meet the requirements. Like, go way out of your way on purpose. Meeting the requirements is already the default setting for every movie made.

B) In any given year, no one can agree on what the best picture is. I mean, one picture will get the most votes, and be the winner, but a million people will complain that some other movie was robbed. So, on the smaller-than-infinitesimal chance that a movie of merit fails to meet the requirements, the Academy can easily say, "Sorry, your movie is excellent, but so are these ten other movies that meet the requirements." And no one will raise a ruckus. It'll be more like, "Dude, what were you thinking?!?"

Edited September 16, 2020 by Milburn Stone

[BetterButter]

Oscars 2021: The Complete Nominations List

[truthaboutluv]

Happy to see Judas and The Black Messiah show up so strongly in the nominations. I've seen some concern online from people worried that their putting Lakeith in for Supporting as well may result in his and Daniel splitting the votes and someone else winning. But I don't see it happening. I think Kaluuya has mad momentum around him right now and he's riding it all the way to the Academy Award win. 

It's unfortunate about the DA 5 Bloods, but I think that movie, like many others before it, got hurt by coming out too early and losing a lot of momentum in the latter months. Most of the acting categories were pretty predictable. Calling it now that I think Bakalova's taking Supporting Actress. I don't think her Critic's Choice win was a fluke. 

There's no clear favorite in the category at the moment, and she's the only one showing up everywhere, including getting the BAFTA nom, which we all know were a complete mess of crazy this year. Best Actress is the true toss up in my opinion. Still not sure if the Academy will swing Carey Mulligan's way or give Frances her third Best Actress Oscar. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by truthaboutluv

[Lady Whistleup]

I think this is a good year to rethink the Academy Awards format. Make it more like the Tony's or Grammy's with a mix of live performance and awards. The Academy Awards format has been stale for so long. Even the dresses the actresses pick for the Oscars tend to be boring.

[Inquisitionist]

4 hours ago, truthaboutluv said:

Happy to see Judas and The Black Messiah show up so strongly in the nominations. I've seen some concern online from people worried that their putting Lakeith in for Supporting as well may result in his and Daniel splitting the votes and someone else winning. But I don't see it happening. I think Kaluuya has mad momentum around him right now and he's riding it all the way to the Academy Award win. 

Who the heck were Kaluuya and Stanfield supposed to be supporting in JatBM?  

[blackwing]

Happy for Steven Yeun and Yuh Jung Youn.  It's interesting to me how much momentum comes into play in Oscar races.  At the start of the awards season, it seemed like Vanessa Kirby was going to win Best Actress but now momentum seems to be shifting towards Carey Mulligan.  However, if it were up to me, I would give it to Viola Davis.  She was incredible as Ma Rainey.

I would give Supporting Actress to Glenn Close.  She is long long long overdue and I don't want to see her go down in history like the late Peter O'Toole, Richard Burton and Deborah Kerr.  I don't care if it would be viewed as a makeup award.  As far as I am concerned, she should have at least two Oscars already.  Sadly, I don't see her winning.  If it can't be her, I hope Youn wins.  Or Bakalova.  I just don't want to see Colman beating her again.

40 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

Who the heck were Kaluuya and Stanfield supposed to be supporting in JatBM?  

I thought both were great, but I would agree... one of them has to be the lead actor.  Shifting someone from lead to supporting is not a new concept (Geena Davis and Jennifer Connelly are two that I can think of who won in Supporting for what were the Lead female roles) but typically in those situations it is arguable (Connelly was arguably supporting Crowe who was the clear lead).  But in Kaluuya and Stanfield's situation... who then would be the Lead actor?  Where a film has an ensemble cast (like Gosford Park) and all the characters are supporting each other, ok maybe.  But this film isn't an ensemble cast.  There are two main male characters and one of them would have to be considered the lead.  I would say it's Stanfield, since the story is more told from his point of view.

[Inquisitionist]

4 minutes ago, blackwing said:

There are two main male characters and one of them would have to be considered the lead.  I would say it's Stanfield, since the story is more told from his point of view.

I would agree.

[Lady Whistleup]

6 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I would give Supporting Actress to Glenn Close.  She is long long long overdue and I don't want to see her go down in history like the late Peter O'Toole, Richard Burton and Deborah Kerr.  I don't care if it would be viewed as a makeup award.  As far as I am concerned, she should have at least two Oscars already.  Sadly, I don't see her winning.  If it can't be her, I hope Youn wins.  Or Bakalova.  I just don't want to see Colman beating her again.

See, I've always hated Oscars that were really lifetime achievement awards. I felt the same about Leonardo diCaprio getting an Oscar for one of his weakest films. His deserved an Oscar but not for the one he got it in. 

[Blakeston]

As far as I'm concerned Kaluuya and Stanfield are both leads. The movie is called Judas and the Black Messiah because it's about those two men.

The only reason either would be considered supporting is because they have better chances in that category. I really wish the Academy would put some sort of cap on how much screentime an actor can have in order to be considered supporting.

[blackwing]

10 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

See, I've always hated Oscars that were really lifetime achievement awards. I felt the same about Leonardo diCaprio getting an Oscar for one of his weakest films. His deserved an Oscar but not for the one he got it in. 

I hear you.  Like Al Pacino.  Or the makeup award, like Judi Dench for 8 minutes for "Shakespeare in Love" which was essentially a makeup for her criminal loss for "Mrs. Brown" to Helen Hunt.  But sometimes the "lifetime achievement award" doesn't actually happen... Lauren Bacall losing to Juliette Binoche, Gloria Stuart losing to Kim Basinger.

As far as I am concerned, if they are nominated, it has to mean that the performance is one of the best five performances of the year, so there has to be at least some merit in the nomination.  And I still would like to see Glenn Close win an Oscar one day.  If she loses this year, then she has tied Peter O'Toole for the most nominations (8!) without a win.

[Lady Whistleup]

7 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I hear you.  Like Al Pacino.  Or the makeup award, like Judi Dench for 8 minutes for "Shakespeare in Love" which was essentially a makeup for her criminal loss for "Mrs. Brown" to Helen Hunt.  But sometimes the "lifetime achievement award" doesn't actually happen... Lauren Bacall losing to Juliette Binoche, Gloria Stuart losing to Kim Basinger.

As far as I am concerned, if they are nominated, it has to mean that the performance is one of the best five performances of the year, so there has to be at least some merit in the nomination.  And I still would like to see Glenn Close win an Oscar one day.  If she loses this year, then she has tied Peter O'Toole for the most nominations (8!) without a win.

Maybe the most egregious lifetime achievement award was John Wayne winning for ... True Grit. Not Searchers. Not The Quiet Man. Not Red River. But True Grit. 

I also think Maria Bakalova is category fraud. She's really in the vast majority of the Borat scenes. To me, she's a lead. I understand why they put her where they put her but she's a lead.

[seasons]

Oscar nominations announced today by Mr and Mrs Nick Jonas. 

Major eye roll.

Please let's not hire them again. Hard pass.

Their annoying commentary and banter not necessary.

Priya doing a little clap every time something was announced that had fallen into her favor.

 

Sorry not sorry to be especially snarky, but is Nick getting smaller or is she getting bigger?

[Bruinsfan]

His new hairdo lost him a good 3-4 inches from how tall he usually stands.

[Blakeston]

I heard a good explanation for how both Kaluuya and Stanfield wound up in supporting.

The studio pushed for Stanfield to be nominated in lead and for Kaluuya to be nominated in supporting. But there were very likely some voters who rejected that idea, and saw Kaluuya as the lead - and a decent number of them must have voted for Stanfield as their #1 choice in supporting.

The supporting actor category was extremely weak this year, so it makes sense that a strong performance like Stanfield's could get in even with most voters considering them a lead.

[Inquisitionist]

17 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

The studio pushed for Stanfield to be nominated in lead and for Kaluuya to be nominated in supporting. But there were very likely some voters who rejected that idea, and saw Kaluuya as the lead - and a decent number of them must have voted for Stanfield as their #1 choice in supporting.

That didn't quite make sense to me at first because I thought actors had to submit themselves in one category or the other.  But according to the rules:

Quote

The determination as to whether a role is a leading or supporting role shall be made individually by members of the branch at the time of balloting.

There's even a protocol for what happens if the same actor/role meets the nomination threshold in both categories!

[Lady Whistleup]

I kind of hope Mank doesn't win. I love movies about the golden age of Hollywood but Mank didn't do it for me at all. It was boring and the worst sort of Award show prestige project.

[Inquisitionist]

16 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I kind of hope Mank doesn't win. I love movies about the golden age of Hollywood but Mank didn't do it for me at all. It was boring and the worst sort of Award show prestige project.

I've avoided it so far because I have not heard one positive take on it.

[Blakeston]

52 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I kind of hope Mank doesn't win. I love movies about the golden age of Hollywood but Mank didn't do it for me at all. It was boring and the worst sort of Award show prestige project.

Fortunately, it's considered a real longshot to win Best Picture.

The far-and-away frontrunner for Best Picture is Nomadland. The Trial of the Chicago 7 is seen as being in second place, with Promising Young Woman as a potential dark horse.

It was widely expected that Mank would get the most nominations, because it's really great in the technical categories like cinematography. But it got snubbed for its screenplay, which suggests that the Academy isn't all that passionate about it.