2017 Awards Season

[vibeology]

It's more complicated than that. The role of Rose won Mary Alice a Tony for featured actress in the original production of the play. Viola won for lead actress. I read the play for school and it's a borderline role. It's not full out category fraud so much as making an advantageous choice. 

[starri]

That's not that uncommon, though.  Frances McDormand won as Lead Actress for Fargo despite being on screen less time than William H Macy who was nominated for Supporting.  Anthony Hopkins won Lead for Silence on the Lambs, even though he's only in about 1/5th of the movie.  I wouldn't be surprised if Scott Glenn is on screen more than he is.

I think you can make the argument that it may not be as much screen time as it is role within the narrative.  When people think of Fargo, they think of Marge, and when you think of SotL, you think of Lecter, not Buffalo Bill.

[gator12]

Viola Davis won the Drama Desk award in the supporting category for the Mary Alice role. From what I've read the only reason she was in the lead category at the Tony's is because of a billing rule. I guess both Denzel and Viola was above the Title.

[Dejana]

Adapted musicals that add a new song for awards contention haven't had the best luck winning the Oscar but I think Best Song is La La Land's to lose barring a major plagiarism controversy. It's an original musical set in LA about a dreamy-eyed couple trying to make it in showbiz-pretty much catnip to AMPAS voters (though the annual anonymous ballot exposés are sure to unearth the vocal detractors, because that gets clicks). With the rule against more than two songs from the same movie being nominated, I doubt vote splitting will do enough damage to cause a loss, either. Anything's possible, of course.

[starri]

12 minutes ago, Dejana said:

Adapted musicals that add a new song for awards contention haven't had the best luck winning the Oscar

Mostly because they're crap compared to the original Broadway score.  The only one that actual won, "You Must Love Me" from Evita, may be the worst I can think of in the category.  Although honestly, the one Original Song winner that I've even liked in the last ten years was "Skyfall."

[AshleyN]

So, uh...

On 12/1/2016 at 3:05 PM, AshleyN said:

*And on that note, I can't help but be a little grossed out that with everything happening in America right now, this is the time Hollywood seems to be choosing to re-embrace Mel Gibson.

I guess we're really doing this, huh? Art vs. artist and all that, but boy it's no wonder that people accuse Hollywood folks of being hypocrites.

12 hours ago, vibeology said:

Also, I'm disappointed to see that the Best Actress Drama category doesn't carry over into the Best Picture Drama category, though I've gotten used to it. Hollywood really does think if its a woman's movie it just can't be as good as a movie about a man.

Yeah, this happens every year and is always so frustrating. Especially since this year four of the nominated films in the Drama Actress category have really strong reviews (better than some of the Picture nominees). Arrival in particular stings since it has the reviews, the box office, and the timeliness that combined really should be enough to make it a factor. There really just seems to be a large contingent of people who just don't view narratives about women as being as "important" as say, a very serious war movie.

I really don't understand how a movie can be nominated for both screenplay and director but not picture. And Aaron Taylor-Johnson was not the acting nominee I would have guessed would come from that movie.

It seems like a given that La La Land is going to steamroll the musical/comedy categories, but Moonlight vs. Manchester in drama is going to be interesting. And speaking of Moonlight I got a chance to see it the other day and now I'm really rooting for it to take SAG ensemble. Like Spotlight, it's really an ensemble piece, with no one actor really dominating the film, but every piece fitting right into place. And while Mahershala Ali is terrific and deserves all the attention he's getting, the three Chirons and Andre Holland are just as deserving of recognition IMO.

Edited December 13, 2016 by AshleyN

[Silver Raven]

6 hours ago, SeanC said:

She's going the category fraud route in the hopes of guaranteeing a win.

The original Broadway role won the Supporting Actress award.  But Viola got the Lead Actress award when she performed it.

[SeanC]

16 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

The original Broadway role won the Supporting Actress award.  

At the time, category placement was determined by billing, so she couldn't be considered for Lead Actress.

Unrelatedly, the official list of 91 contenders for Best Original Song.  There are three La La Land numbers up, and two from Moana (neither of which is "You're Welcome").

[gator12]

30 minutes ago, SeanC said:

At the time, category placement was determined by billing, so she couldn't be considered for Lead Actress.

Unrelatedly, the official list of 91 contenders for Best Original Song.  There are three La La Land numbers up, and two from Moana (neither of which is "You're Welcome").

And the category placement is still determined by billing, hence why Viola won in feature actress at drama desk but lead at the Tonys.

Four out of the Five time this role has been up for Awards it has went supporting

I don't think this is category fraud at all.

[Silver Raven]

Why isn't "You're Welcome" eligible for Best Song?

[absnow54]

SAG Award Nominations. La La Land didn't make the ensemble, which will help Moonlight's and Manchester by the Sea's campaign.

[AshleyN]

Yeah, I know La La Land is supposed to be the Stone and Gosling show, but what was the last Best Picture winner to not even get nominated for SAG ensemble? Between the Globes and this, it'll be interesting to see if one of Moonlight or Manchester by the Sea can solidify their place as the top challenger.

Hell or High Water was also snubbed in ensemble, which might be more surprising actually.

Am I missing something, or is Alex Hibbert (Little Chiron) not included as part of the Moonlight ensemble for some reason? Hopefully it's just a mistake, because that would be a real shame. Not to mention pretty dumb, considering he's the lead for one of the film's three segments.

SAG always seems to be good for at least one out there nomination, I guess Emily Blunt fills that spot this year. I haven't seen the movie and I don't doubt that she's good (she usually is), but pretty surprising to see her make it over Annette Bening, Ruth Negga, or (considering her film was nominated in ensemble) Taraji P. Henson.

Edited December 14, 2016 by AshleyN

[Shannon L.]

Interesting that Winona Ryder was nominated for Best Actress in a Drama Series when a lot of casual viewers thought that she was the weak link in the show. 

[Athena]

23 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Interesting that Winona Ryder was nominated for Best Actress in a Drama Series when a lot of casual viewers thought that she was the weak link in the show. 

Hollywood loves a good comeback story. Ryder has not headlined anything significant in years and even though she may not be the most memorable of the show after it aired, she was part of the initial buzz. She was a bit of a critic and box office darling back in her teen acting days. I think she is still relatively liked in the industry and a 30 year veteran. Netflix and the production probably pushed her campaign for nomination as well.

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, AshleyN said:

Yeah, I know La La Land is supposed to be the Stone and Gosling show, but what was the last Best Picture winner to not even get nominated for SAG ensemble?

The only time it happened was at the very first SAG Awards in 1995, when Braveheart wasn't nominated.

Quote

Am I missing something, or is Alex Hibbert (Little Chiron) not included as part of the Moonlight ensemble for some reason? Hopefully it's just a mistake, because that would be a real shame. Not to mention pretty dumb, considering he's the lead for one of the film's three segments.

Eligibility for the film ensemble award is dictated by whether you have your own title card.  The kid playing the youngest Chiron didn't, so he's out.

Quote

SAG always seems to be good for at least one out there nomination, I guess Emily Blunt fills that spot this year. I haven't seen the movie and I don't doubt that she's good (she usually is), but pretty surprising to see her make it over Annette Bening, Ruth Negga, or (considering her film was nominated in ensemble) Taraji P. Henson.

I think that Blunt (and, to a lesser extent, Streep) reflect that it's advantageous, at least with SAG, for your film to get a real theatrical run prior to nominations.  Sure, there are screeners, but the ultimate screener is people seeing the movie of their own accord.

Edited December 14, 2016 by SeanC

[dkb]

Does anyone where the forum for all the individual awards threads is? I can't find it.

 

I found it! I always forget its in the Specials forums.

Edited December 14, 2016 by dkb
Found it

[AshleyN]

8 hours ago, SeanC said:

Eligibility for the film ensemble award is dictated by whether you have your own title card.  The kid playing the youngest Chiron didn't, so he's out.

Oh. That's kind of a bullshit rule though, given that things like that have as much (or more) to do with how much weight the actor's name carries as with their contribution to the film. I can see it being useful as a guideline, but you'd think there'd be some sort of process in place to avoid a situation like this, where one of the film's co-leads gets left out because he's not famous enough to have his own title card.

In other news, I think getting booted from Original to Adapted Screenplay is actually a good thing for Moonlight? There's a good chance it would have lost to Manchester by the Sea in Original, but it will probably be the favourite in Adapted.

Edited December 15, 2016 by AshleyN

[thuganomics85]

Yeah, I think it will fare better with Adapted.  I'm guessing it's biggest competition will be Fences, Arrival, and maybe Hidden Figures, and if it keeps getting the acclaim it is getting now, I can see Moonlight easily taking Adapted Screenplay.

[Dejana]

10 hours ago, SeanC said:

I think that Blunt (and, to a lesser extent, Streep) reflect that it's advantageous, at least with SAG, for your film to get a real theatrical run prior to nominations.  Sure, there are screeners, but the ultimate screener is people seeing the movie of their own accord.

Some of the awards sites track which screeners were sent and when (Maggie's Plan and Miles Ahead were first out of the gate for 2016, in August). Lots of voters in various branches post kind of braggy pics on social media of all their screeners as they come in. The voters have grown quite accustomed to being lavished (hence the outcry with the proposed changes to Academy membership: no votes? No more free movies!) and I don't want to say they can't be bothered to go out to the movie theaters, but many are either busy and/or have very sweet home viewing setups and honestly prefer watching movies that way.  Even movies that were released in the spring and have been on DVD for months send out screeners to members of the different guilds and groups. The screener for  The Girl on the Train was delivered more than three weeks ago and Loving, just last week, as SAG voting wrapped up. Oscar bloggers have been saying for months that Florence Foster Jenkins was playing very well with Academy types, but she missed for Hope Springs, which also had an August release date and made more than twice as much as FFJ.

How a movie plays at home vs. on the big screen can also have an impact on Oscar voting, too. From a Vulture piece a few years ago, about why Argo would win Best Picture:

Quote

6. Argo plays well at home. Lincoln not so much.
Most Academy voters screen the major nominees on screeners sent to their houses, and “a movie like Lincoln doesn’t play well on DVD,” explains our first Oscar consultant. “I’ve heard that a lot: ‘I am glad I went back to see it in the theater.’ It can be a little boring, so they stop.” Plus, most Academy members are too gainfully employed to have time to go to screenings; those tapped to join the Academy (in all fields) are usually well known, which means they’re more in demand — as compared to the guild awards, in which all members vote, regardless of how much or little work they get. “[Academy members] all watch it on DVD, or at least a lot of them do. That’s where Argo has the advantage.”

Oscar frontrunners lose out for many different reasons (controversies stirred up by rivals, and voters being in love with the shiny new thing, or a movie about show business) but being "boring" at home according to voters couldn't have helped.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Dejana

[aradia22]

I forgot that Florence Foster Jenkins came out until I got an email a little while ago that was like 'do you want to enter to win a copy on dvd' and my answer (in my head) was "No." I caught the French movie Marguerite which is a fictional movie based more on the idea of FFJ. It was good enough (with some aimlessness and storylines that weren't cashed out) but outside of France I don't see it being recognized for anything. I'm part of the backlash of Meryl Streep being nominated for roles in movies that weren't that great. It's one thing to rail against the typical Oscar bait movie. But a more commercially viable, pedestrian effort isn't generally what people mean when they say they want more audience favorites to be up for awards. (See: Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side). 

[caracas1914]

Sally Field doesn't seem to be getting much traction for her role in "Hello my name is Doris"

[Chaos Theory]

23 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Interesting that Winona Ryder was nominated for Best Actress in a Drama Series when a lot of casual viewers thought that she was the weak link in the show. 

I thought this was bull.  I thought she put on a strong performance.  This was not a"gritty" show and I wasnt sure what these people were expecting from a mother whose child had vanished.  I thought she was brilliant.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[starri]

If there was a weak link, it was Matthew Modine.

[SeanC]

Earlier I posted that I couldn't imagine anything trumping The Jungle Book for Best VFX.  Having seen Rogue One:

Spoiler

I can readily imagine this effect will be divisive and perhaps disliked by some in the actor's branch, but the CGI Peter Cushing is a showstopping effect.

I have to consider this film at least a threat to win.

[methodwriter85]

On 12/15/2016 at 7:43 AM, Chaos Theory said:

I thought this was bull.  I thought she put on a strong performance.  This was not a"gritty" show and I wasnt sure what these people were expecting from a mother whose child had vanished.  I thought she was brilliant.

It is kind of bullshit that everyone criticized the performance as being one-note and staying in the same emotional place.  Well, duh. Her child vanished, and the entire first season takes place during one week!

I liked Sully but I'm not surprised it's getting shut out. It's just not really an Oscar-caliber movie or role.

[ruby24]

I think Tom Hanks is under-appreciated now. Not by the public of course, but these awards bodies seem to think it's just easy for him to do what he does, so they keep snubbing him.

But if it's so easy, how come there hasn't been a "new" Tom Hanks to emerge as the beloved everyguy who can do every genre convincingly? I don't know, sometimes I think guys like him are taken for granted because they don't do big, transformative acting like Daniel Day-Lewis or something, but I just wonder if the other kind (to be convincingly ordinary yet sympathetic and always command the audience with your screen presence) is really as easy as it looks.

I mean, maybe it is for those particular people, but isn't having that ability a special gift in itself? Certainly not everyone can do that, or there would be lots of Tom Hankses by now and there just isn't.

I think he's been great in three recent movies of his- Captain Phillips, Bridge of Spies and Sully. For me, he absolutely 100% deserved that nomination for Captain Phillips and I think he was robbed.

[gator12]

I think Tom Hanks, no matter how good he is is one of those actors that fall out of favors with the industry awards people, while people like Meryl Streep makes it in everytime she has a role that they deem worthy. 

[AshleyN]

I'm not sure that fallen out of favour is how I'd put it, since I think he's still pretty loved in the industry, but I do think he might have reached the point where he's taken for granted. It is pretty strange, considering his stature, that this is the third time in four years where he's gotten strong reviews in a critically well-received, financially successful film with a respected director and yet will almost certainly have zero Oscar nominations to show for it. He came close with Captain Phillips, but that was a brutal year for the Best Actor category. The competition hasn't been as strong the last couple of years though, so it's a little surprising that he's basically gotten nowhere for Bridge of Spies or Sully. The former in particular, considering that the film received a bunch of nominations and his costar won the damn thing.

I think the problem is more of what ruby said, in that his performances, especially the recent ones, don't tend to involve a lot of capital A ACTING, so it's harder to appreciate how good he is at what he does do. I think in order to get nominated again, he'll probably either have to do something really different from what people are used to seeing from him, or else have his one of his films become a bigger deal in the Best Picture race (a la Matt Damon for The Martian).

Edited December 19, 2016 by AshleyN

[SeanC]

21 minutes ago, AshleyN said:

I think the problem is more of what ruby said, in that his performances, especially the recent ones, don't tend to involve a lot of capital A ACTING, so it's harder to appreciate how good he is at what he does do. I think in order to get nominated again, he'll probably either have to do something really different from what people are used to seeing from him, or else have his one of his films become a bigger deal in the Best Picture race (a la Matt Damon for The Martian).

Tom Hanks tells his agent to bring him all the scripts currently circulating where he could play a serial murderer.

[Bruinsfan]

On 12/12/2016 at 7:57 PM, starri said:

Anthony Hopkins won Lead for Silence on the Lambs, even though he's only in about 1/5th of the movie.  I wouldn't be surprised if Scott Glenn is on screen more than he is.

I think you can make the argument that it may not be as much screen time as it is role within the narrative.

I think Hopkins' performance is the Platonic ideal of this effect. If there was a more iconic movie performance in the last quarter century, it's somehow slipped my mind.

On 12/14/2016 at 10:58 AM, Shannon L. said:

Interesting that Winona Ryder was nominated for Best Actress in a Drama Series when a lot of casual viewers thought that she was the weak link in the show. 

Maybe those shoplifting skills came in handy?

[SeanC]

The 7 finalists for Makeup and Hairstyling have been announced, from which three nominees will be chosen:

Quote

“Deadpool”
“The Dressmaker”
“Florence Foster Jenkins”
“Hail, Caesar!”
“A Man Called Ove”
“Star Trek Beyond”
“Suicide Squad”

The 2009 Star Trek won this category in its year (where famously the Makeup branch nominated three films that had no other nominations between them).

Edited December 21, 2016 by SeanC

[scarynikki12]

Here's where I am on La La Land.  I saw it yesterday, really enjoyed it, but I am really really hoping that the other Oscar contenders (Moonlight, Manchester By The Sea, Fences to name a few off the top of my head) prove to be better. 

The thing about La La Land is that, as enjoyable as it was, it still felt really shallow.  I thought Stone and Gosling were both great, the score was good, the cinematography and direction was beautiful but it still didn't work in the way I expect from a potential Best Picture front-runner.  The individual songs are the one part of the movie where I can find the criticism as I think the opening number was very weak (not helped by the fact that the music drowned out the singers and I still have no idea what they were actually saying) and, while the movie did improve in this regard (Stone's big number near the end was fantastic), it took it's time getting there.  I do expect this to make the move to Broadway at some point, which will hopefully mean additional songs and a theater director who can get rid of the shallow feel, so I think it can be improved to the quality of a Best Picture (or, in this scenario, Best Musical) but the accolades that it seems to be getting are, in my opinion, way overblown.  I think it's entirely based on the fact that it's about trying to succeed in Hollywood and we know the Academy loves to award itself whenever possible.

[starri]

12 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Here's where I am on La La Land.  I saw it yesterday, really enjoyed it, but I am really really hoping that the other Oscar contenders (Moonlight, Manchester By The Sea, Fences to name a few off the top of my head) prove to be better. 

It won't matter.  AMPAS likes nothing more than to indulge in the circle jerk that comes from rewarding a movie that's about Hollywood.

[PepSinger]

Personally, I would be fine if La La Land wins Best Picture. Every element of that movie worked for me. I can't even think of a critic I have. It would also be nice to have a (somewhat) light hearted movie win just because I feel as if this category almost always go to the MOST. DRAMATIC. MOVIE. EVER. I'll admit that I'm slightly biased because Mia is me in a lot of ways (struggling actor), and this movie has stayed with me since I saw it on Sunday.

The only other movie I would loved to win Best Picture is Moonlight. It's stellar.

Edited December 23, 2016 by PepSinger

[Spartan Girl]

I just got back from Jackie and yup, Natalie's gonna win that second Oscar. She was that good.

[methodwriter85]

I saw Nocturnal Animals. I can't see Amy or Jake getting anything out of it. The roles just weren't deep or complex enough. Aaron's nomination for the Golden Globe makes sense, but still, I thought the movie had a really interesting premise that it just wasted. I got what it wanted to be, but it didn't get there, in my opinion.

[scarynikki12]

I've now seen Manchester By the Sea, Moonlight and Passengers.  No one is going to put Passengers in the Oscar race, so we'll focus on the other two.  Manchester is strong thanks to its characters and acting so I expect it to be competitive in those categories with a nod for Casey Affleck in Best Actor and maaaaaaaybe Michelle Williams for Supporting Actress if the Academy is feeling generous.  She was excellent but her Randy didn't quite feel like she qualified for the category.  On the other hand, Judi Dench got her makeup Oscar for a 10 minute role so, technically, anything is fair game for the Supporting categories. 

As for Moonlight, I want it be nominated for everything it can get and then go on to win them all.  Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, Score, Acting, whatever, I want it to WIN IT ALL!!!  It was so fucking good.  I know that the three actors who played Chiron would probably all technically count towards Supporting rather than Lead but I don't care.  Nominate them all for Lead Actor or put them together as one.  I've read that Mahershala Ali is the frontrunner for Supporting Actor and I have to agree.  Just inscribe that trophy now because this race is over.  I also thought Janelle Monae and Naomie Harris were also excellent and I would love to see them both get nominations and then somehow tie. 

It was so good and exceeded every expectation I had so I am really looking forward to Oscar night.

[ennui]

On 12/12/2016 at 5:57 PM, starri said:

That's not that uncommon, though.  Frances McDormand won as Lead Actress for Fargo despite being on screen less time than William H Macy who was nominated for Supporting.  Anthony Hopkins won Lead for Silence on the Lambs, even though he's only in about 1/5th of the movie.  I wouldn't be surprised if Scott Glenn is on screen more than he is.

I think you can make the argument that it may not be as much screen time as it is role within the narrative.  When people think of Fargo, they think of Marge, and when you think of SotL, you think of Lecter, not Buffalo Bill.

Maybe this explains why Dev Patel is nominated as Best Supporting for his role in Lion. Or not.

[Silver Raven]

1 hour ago, ennui said:

Maybe this explains why Dev Patel is nominated as Best Supporting for his role in Lion. Or not.

It's my understanding that he only appears in the second half of the movie.

[ennui]

7 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

It's my understanding that he only appears in the second half of the movie.

But Starri said that screen time is not necessarily a determining factor.

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 12/14/2016 at 11:40 AM, AshleyN said:

SAG always seems to be good for at least one out there nomination, I guess Emily Blunt fills that spot this year. I haven't seen the movie and I don't doubt that she's good (she usually is), but pretty surprising to see her make it over Annette Bening, Ruth Negga, or (considering her film was nominated in ensemble) Taraji P. Henson.

It's nice to get this validation when my idea was laughed at on page 1.  I haven't seen Annette, Ruth, or Taraji's movies but I really did love Emily's performance.  Nice surprise.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[aradia22]

Quote

Here's where I am on La La Land.  I saw it yesterday, really enjoyed it, but I am really really hoping that the other Oscar contenders (Moonlight, Manchester By The Sea, Fences to name a few off the top of my head) prove to be better. 

The thing about La La Land is that, as enjoyable as it was, it still felt really shallow. 

I feel the same way but maybe for different reasons. I see it kind of as 500 Days of Summer with some other elements thrown in. I don't get the comparisons to Old Hollywood musicals. For me, there wasn't a lot of joy in the movie. Emma Stone won me back as a fan. Sitting in the theater, I thought it was mostly fine if a little long and self-indulgent. But I want to preface what I'm about to say by saying I found it relatively enjoyable because my criticisms are going to come across as harsh. I do think it's shallow and kind of cynical. It's not a huge indictment of movie musicals but it isn't a celebration of them either. It's like 500 Days of Summer or any movie that tries to bravely upend the fantasy. Oh, wow, it's hard to make it in L.A. Love doesn't last. Thanks for enlightening me with your brilliant insights, movie. I think the award I would resent this movie getting the most is screenwriting. It's such a weak script. Seb makes a pathetic argument in favor of jazz (and I like jazz... I was listening to Miles Davis on a whim the night before I went to see the movie). We know very little about who they are as people and have no real reason to care about them because most of the high points of their relationship were expressed in montage/nonspeaking sequences. It's not quite as harsh as cynical, but I do think there's something a little unappealing in the way so much of the movie seemed to be sketched out in shorthand. Oh, you get what's happening with the John Legend character right? I feel like the movie thought it didn't have to bother doing the actual work of selling us on the story. This is a movie for movie people but I didn't feel like it was acting like the audience was smart enough to follow along. I felt like it was throwing us crumbs in the form of storytelling cliches. And while the final sequence (the one that starts with Sebastian at the piano in his club) was very obvious (I didn't think we were suddenly going to jump into an alternate reality or anything) it still felt like a final twist of the knife. Like, oh, you shallow plebs, is this the happy ending you wanted? I think the movie is a little too clever for its own good and in resisting a lot of the tropes (and structure) of movie musicals, it loses a lot of the joy. If you're going to try to pull the rug out from under me, at least convince me it's a rug that a jazz legend actually peed on. 

[SeanC]

The American Cinema Editors guild nominees are out.  The most notable thing is that Silence doesn't make the cut even though they have categories for both Drama and Comedy/Musical editing, so there are twice as many nominees as the Academy will have.

It was an open question whether Silence's late debut led to its underwhelming tally with the first wave of awards (critics, HFPA, SAG), but, at least with this guild, it didn't gain any traction.

[Ms.Moon]

I'd said this after Dr. Strange and I will say it again, it should be nominated for an Academy Award for costume design and win because the costuming, fabrics, and tailoring for this movie was exquisite.  I loved the patterns, richness, boldness, the costuming was everything and I just wanted to touch every single costume everything was so beautiful and the richness of the style was so unique and interesting.  I loved everything about it and I am sure the Academy would overlook this movie because it was not a period piece and it was a popular comic book movie but it is a true shame because I thought the costuming was one of the best aspects of the movie.  

[thuganomics85]

It's a minor thing, since I doubt it will factor into the big awards, but I wonder the process was that made Eddies consider The Jungle Book a comedy.  It has some light, funny moments, but a comedy isn't what pops into my head.

Then again, after the Golden Globes gave Best Comedy to Matt Damon's wacky adventures of not trying to die on Mars in The Martian, I guess it's all relative (and I still love The Martian, but that will never not amuse me.)

[Ms Blue Jay]

My brother read The Martian and said that it was a very funny book.  He was dumbfounded by the casting of Matt Damon and how the movie actually played out - I think he was expecting a Ryan Reynolds or young Vince Vaughn type or somebody who'd be wry and quippy and sarcastic.  Yeah, they didn't exactly make a comedy did they.

Edited January 3, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[SeanC]

The WGA, the one guild in Hollywood unconcerned with Oscar prediction, offered up its scripting nominees today; it's a more Oscar-friendly slate than is often the case, with no major disqualifications from the top contenders for Oscar -- but they didn't follow the Academy writers' branch's lead on how Moonlight was classified and nominated it in the Original Screenplay category (same with Loving).

Also, Deadpool scored an Adapted Screenplay nomination despite not mounting a campaign or sending out screeners.

Quote

WGA Original Screenplay nominees

Hell or High Water

La La Land

Loving

Manchester by the Sea

Moonlight

Quote

WGA Adapted Screenplay nominees

Arrival

Deadpool

Fences

Hidden Figures

Nocturnal Animals

Edited January 4, 2017 by SeanC

[ruby24]

Deadpool got an ACE nomination the other day too. I think it could land a surprise screenplay nod on Oscar morning. If it gets a PGA nomination I would probably predict it for that.

I also think Zootopia is possible for an original screenplay Oscar nom. There will be two open slots with Loving and Moonlight in adapted, and popular animated films have gotten in there before, although only Pixar (Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up). Toy Story 3 was nominated in adapted, and way back when, Shrek of all things was nominated there too (I had totally forgotten that).

This could be Disney's first in the category.

Edited January 4, 2017 by ruby24

[katha]

On 3.1.2017 at 9:54 PM, thuganomics85 said:

It's a minor thing, since I doubt it will factor into the big awards, but I wonder the process was that made Eddies consider The Jungle Book a comedy.  It has some light, funny moments, but a comedy isn't what pops into my head.

Then again, after the Golden Globes gave Best Comedy to Matt Damon's wacky adventures of not trying to die on Mars in The Martian, I guess it's all relative (and I still love The Martian, but that will never not amuse me.)

You have it this year again with Colin Farrell getting a nomination for best actor in a comedy for The Lobster. I think it's a great movie and he gave a great performance in it, so it's cool that an off-beat small movie like that got the recognition. His performance absolutely warrants a nomination IMO, so good for the Globes for acknowledging something beyond the usual suspects. And there are disturbingly funny and absurd moments in the film, sure. But it's a dystopian nightmare. The way the Globes define "comedy" is just weird, is my point LOL.

Edited January 5, 2017 by katha

[SeanC]

I haven't decided what I think about the Best Director field yet.  There are three slots that seem guaranteed for Chazelle, Jenkins and Lonergan.  For the remaining two, some combination of Denis Villeneuve, David Mackenzie, Martin Scorsese, and Denzel Washington?  I guess one should also consider Theodore Melfi, if Hidden Figures continues to (seemingly) gain steam.  Villeneuve and Scorsese are the most auteur-y of the non-guaranteed contenders, but I'm still not entirely sure how much they'll go for those films.