Oscars - 2013

[RobertR]

Nominations are out tomorrow, might as well make a couple of predictions.

 

I'm expecting 8 to 10 Best Picture nominations, most likely 9. Here's my prediction in order of likelihood of nomination.

 

1. Lincoln

2. Zero Dark Thirty

3. Argo

4. Les Miserables

5. Silver Linings Playbook

6. Life of Pi

7. Moonrise Kingdom

8. Django Unchained

9. Beasts of the Southern Wild

10. Skyfall

 

Others that I could see hanging around and perhaps pulling a surprise are The Master, Amour, The Sessions, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (the Academy is old).

 

So far, I haven't seen 5 of the films I expect to be nominated. That will change.

 

And, in general, I don't have any major issue if the nominations pan out that way. A little bit of everything and some solidly ambitious films. Not the riskiest bunch, but then awards of these types run on concensus.

 

Robert

[jjfanec]

I have only seen Argo and Lincoln on your list. I will see Les Miserables soon. Argo and Lincoln are locks for best picture in my mind. Daniel Day-Lewis should be a lock for a best actor nod. I think Skyfall or the Dark Knight Rises gets in but I would be surprised to see both. My guess is Skyfall since it just got reported they are doing a big Bond tribute at this years Oscars

[Patrick425]

8-10 nominations? Really? Isn't it usually something like 5? I didn't know they could have as many as 10.

[rwa12]

I believe they expanded it to up to 10 a few years ago. Looks like a fairly strong group this year, Amour snuck in, surprised at no Moonrise Kingdom.

[owbc]

What's so great about Silver Linings Playbook?

[rwa12]

I haven't seen it, but I've heard nothing but great things. I was told this is Cooper's transition from Hangover type roles, that Lawrence commands every scene, that DeNiro finally didn't mail in a performance, and that the story itself (tied to sports) is outstanding.

[jjfanec]

I havent seen Zero Dark Thirty but two of the biggest snubs seem to be Ben Affleck (Argo) and Kathryn Bigelow (ZDT) not getting best director nods.

[Mass Haas]

Thoroughly enjoyed The Impossible (trailer), the "psunami" movie for which Naomi Watts earned a Leading Actress nod. Very surprised it did not net any technical nominations.

 

The Leading Actress category looks wide open, certainly offsetting what should be a Daniel Day Lewis coronation.

[jjfanec]

I just watched Les Miserables. After seeing Sally Field's performance in Lincoln and now Hathaway there is no way was Field should win this award. Hathaway's performance was so much better.

 

Both Les Miserables and Lincoln have the feel of Oscar movie. Argo was very good as well but I would be surprised to see it beat the other two. I hope to see Zero Dark Thirty sometime soon but I dont know if I will get a chance

[Patrick425]

Not sure if anyone else watched the Golden Globes tonight, but what was the deal with Tommy Lee Jones?

[RobertR]

Prediction Time

 

BEST PICTURE:

Argo

 

DIRECTOR:

Steven Spielberg ("Lincoln")

 

LEAD ACTOR:

Daniel Day-Lewis ("Lincoln")

 

LEAD ACTRESS:

Jennifer Lawrence ("Silver Linings Playbook")

 

SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Tommy Lee Jones ("Lincoln")

 

SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Anne Hathaway ("Les Miserables")

 

ANIMATED FEATURE:

Wreck-It Ralph

 

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:

Searching for Sugar Man

 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

Amour

 

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

Lincoln

 

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

Zero Dark Thirty

 

PRODUCTION DESIGN:

Anna Karenina

 

CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Life of Pi

 

COSTUME DESIGN:

Anna Karenina

 

FILM EDITING:

Argo

 

MAKEUP:

Les Miserables

 

MUSIC (SCORE):

Life of Pi

 

MUSIC (SONG):

"Skyfall" from "Skyfall"

 

SOUND EDITING:

Zero Dark Thirty

 

SOUND MIXING:

Les Miserables

 

VISUAL EFFECTS:

Life of Pi

 

BEST DOCUMENTARY - SHORT SUBJECT

Inocente

 

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM

Curfew

 

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM

Paperman

[xisxisxis]

Prediction Time

 

Is this based on what you guess given previous awards this season & rumor or what you think? Would like to see what you think based on your POV.

[RobertR]

Purely on what I think is likely to win. This is the horse race report.

 

As far as what I would like to win, throw a dart at the board and I'll probably not complain this year. I haven't been able to see several of the major nominees, Lincoln, Life of Pi, Les Mis, and Zero Dark Thirty, for a variety of reasons including length of the films, so it's hard for me to get really worked up. Kind of odd since I've seen 40 some 2012 releases, from a variety of genres, but from what I gather I expect I'd like all of them, but not be blown away by any.

 

From what I've seen, my BP vote would probably go to Beasts of the Southern Wild, but I recognize that's not likely to mean anything on Sunday, especially since I'm well aware of the box office. If we were taking the year as a whole, Holy Motors would probably get my vote, but no surprise that it's not nominated, it's much too weird and esoteric for the Oscars.

 

Robert

[PeaveyFury]

Finally saw Silver Linings Playbook last night, and actually feel bad for Cooper- if he wasn't up against the Daniel Day Lewis machine, his performance was good enough to win.

 

DeNiro's best role in a really, really long time as well.

[Schlitz001]

I don't think enough people saw "The Master". Joaquin Phoenix is brilliant in that film. Better than Daniel Day Lewis dare I say. In fact, I think "The Master" is better than all the other best picture nominees and I have seen them all. It should be nominated in a lot more categories.

 

One thing I really like this year, is all the love that Michael Haneke is getting. It is way overdue for him. I can't wait to watch.

[TooLiveBrew]

John Axford, Oscars savant

 

And, the Oscar for best Oscars night predictions goes to…

 

Brewers closer John Axford.

 

Cue the applause. And a short and sweet acceptance speech.

 

“I’d like to thank myself,” Axford said.

 

He was 14-for-15 in his annual Academy Awards predictions on Sunday night, successfully picking Best Picture for the third straight year, hitting on some more obscure categories like Best Documentary, Film Editing and Original Score and missing only in Best Director, where Ang Lee won for Life of Pi over Axford’s pick, Steven Spielberg for Lincoln.

[RobertR]

Just like a closer, only goes for a limited amount of categories instead of for a complete game.

 

I don't know if there's much to say about the awards this year. Some surprises, but nothing totally out of left field. I think Argo is a little slight for a BP winner, but it's well crafted, smart, entertaining, and non-controversial and it's easy to see why a consensus emerged for it. It's doesn't stick out like a sore thumb when you put it in a list of films that were viewed as primarily entertainment/thrillers that won like Rebecca, The French Connection, The Sting, Rocky, The Silence of the Lambs, Gladiator, or The Departed.

 

As for the ceremony itself, I thought it was hit and miss. Shirley Bassey was probably the highlight. Macfarlane was his usually scattershot, adolescent self, although apparently the ratings were way up for teens and young men, so I expect that he'll be back. After Tina Fey and Amy Poehler get a shot to host a more female friendly show.

[xisxisxis]

I don't know if there's much to say about the awards this year. Some surprises, but nothing totally out of left field. I think Argo is a little slight for a BP winner, but it's well crafted, smart, entertaining, and non-controversial and it's easy to see why a consensus emerged for it.

 

I don't have any horse in the race as I stopped going to movie theaters several years ago (I see everything on DVD or streaming or on cable) so I can't really comment on the winners. I can see the argument for Argo, I am just so tired of the whole Affleck as a victim BS running around. Kathryn Bigelow wasn't nominated as a Director for a BP nominated film that I have heard from several respected film reviewers was better than Argo. I haven't seen the same angst and posturing from her camp. Was there a single academy member that Affleck didn't call and beg them to vote for Argo?

 

As for the show. Egads when will the producers realize musicals have gone the way of the dodo and stop putting in hours of dance and music numbers in the show. By hour 2 I was done with the telecast. When award winners have to scream out the list of thanks before they are cut off so that we can see Harry Potter dance or Charlize theron/tatum do a number is really not must-watch TV. I loved the tribute to James Bond music and thought it was great, especially the Shirley Bassey performance (now theres a musician that doesn't need the crutches of a recorded performance to lipsync). But there wasn't as much bond music as there should have been. Also, who needs a 20 minute standup routine from the host? Seriously is this an oscar show or a Seth McFarlane career vehicle? Cut the show back to 2 hours. Eliminate all the friggin song and dance BS and do a better job selecting presenters. So glad we didn't have another round of pre-pubescent presenters nobody other than the 13YO girls have heard of, but I either want a video blocker so I never see Kristin Stewart again or they should just skip the weirdo in the future. There is always going to be an issue with different demographics driving the show so either decide on which one you want to accommodate (old hollywood or the MTV awards generation) and stick to it - splitting the difference is just not doing it. Also, revamping the categories needs to happen. While years ago costumes and design were critical, CGI and special effects are now instrumental. Bring back some of the technical awards and jettison the costumes and designers and if you are going to have an off-site awards for a bunch of the more technical categories it's fine to show a recap, but WHY bring them out for another round of applause and time sucking. Can we also stop with the host(s) as cheerleaders with their clapping like chimps after everything to get the audience to respond. That could easily knock 10 minutes off the show....

[RobertR]

I don't know if there's much to say about the awards this year. Some surprises, but nothing totally out of left field. I think Argo is a little slight for a BP winner, but it's well crafted, smart, entertaining, and non-controversial and it's easy to see why a consensus emerged for it.

 

I don't have any horse in the race as I stopped going to movie theaters several years ago (I see everything on DVD or streaming or on cable) so I can't really comment on the winners. I can see the argument for Argo, I am just so tired of the whole Affleck as a victim BS running around. Kathryn Bigelow wasn't nominated as a Director for a BP nominated film that I have heard from several respected film reviewers was better than Argo. I haven't seen the same angst and posturing from her camp. Was there a single academy member that Affleck didn't call and beg them to vote for Argo?

 

Yeah, the poor Ben Affleck meme could have stopped a month ago. I get the Hollywood likes him and he probably should have been nominated for Best Director, but it's not like he isn't already a highly respected and paid director.

 

If anyone has a claim to complain, I'd agree that it was Bigelow. The film got smeared with the idea that it supports torture, and I think that was as much Oscar politics as real politics. It helps that she already has an Oscar, so it would have been incredibly difficult for her to complain, but it also does nothing to encourage tackling difficult material.

 

The way the voting is set up now, you can be divisive and get a nomination if you're loved by 5% of the voters, but since they use a preferential ranking ballot, consensus is the order of the day for the big winner. Argo with its "Hollywood helps save the day" story probably was middle of the pack in rankings even with the naysayers. That's as much of a reason that it won as the quality of the film. Being non-divisive, or if you're being uncharitable "safe", is a plus in that kind of system when finishing 2nd or 3rd on a lot of ballots beats being divisive and getting a lot of 1st and 9th place votes.

 

Robert

[Raw Biz]

I've always wondered what criteria exactly is used when judging a director. Isn't a lot of directing getting the best performance out of an actor which, aside from the actor's performance, isn't seen onscreen? I understand there is stuff like camera shots, pacing, and editing but isn't that the part of the DP and editor? I've been a huge movie fan my entire life but I've never been able to figure this out. To me, it just seems like if a movie is good, people think the director was good.

[TooLiveBrew]

I've always wondered what criteria exactly is used when judging a director. Isn't a lot of directing getting the best performance out of an actor which, aside from the actor's performance, isn't seen onscreen? I understand there is stuff like camera shots, pacing, and editing but isn't that the part of the DP and editor? I've been a huge movie fan my entire life but I've never been able to figure this out. To me, it just seems like if a movie is good, people think the director was good.

I'm not sure what, exactly, the answer would be... but the only thing I can lend is that, for certain directors, I tend to see a similar style from film to film (first one that jumps in my head here would be Eastwood). I haven't watched Argo yet, but I'll instantly be looking to see how it compares, stylistically, to The Town (& perhaps it won't at all).

 

I think that some directors have the ability to affect their films on the macro level, whether that's through instructing contributors like DPs or editors, or simply choosing something like what time of day to film an exterior shot (for an example). I'm sure you'll get far better answers, but the similarities I feel like I notice in Eastwood's films were what jumped into my head upon reading your post.

[Raw Biz]

I've always wondered what criteria exactly is used when judging a director. Isn't a lot of directing getting the best performance out of an actor which, aside from the actor's performance, isn't seen onscreen? I understand there is stuff like camera shots, pacing, and editing but isn't that the part of the DP and editor? I've been a huge movie fan my entire life but I've never been able to figure this out. To me, it just seems like if a movie is good, people think the director was good.

I'm not sure what, exactly, the answer would be... but the only thing I can lend is that, for certain directors, I tend to see a similar style from film to film (first one that jumps in my head here would be Eastwood). I haven't watched Argo yet, but I'll instantly be looking to see how it compares, stylistically, to The Town (& perhaps it won't at all).

 

I think that some directors have the ability to affect their films on the macro level, whether that's through instructing contributors like DPs or editors, or simply choosing something like what time of day to film an exterior shot (for an example). I'm sure you'll get far better answers, but the similarities I feel like I notice in Eastwood's films were what jumped into my head upon reading your post.

 

I definitely notice similarities across movies too. Like every Wes Anderson movie for instance. The soundtrack, the long shots, even the credits. But if you take one individual movie and were to judge how it was directed, what would you look at? With some directors, you know what their style is and therefore what they are contributing. But for a relative newcomer, you probably wouldn't know what they contributed unless you worked on the film.

[RobertR]

I think what you most want to look for is consistency and all parts working together when judging a director. The old chestnut is, when one performance is good, credit the actor, when all the performances are good, credit the director.

 

The director is the boss and everything passes through him for approval and guidance. Some delegate more than others, but just like any manager their fingerprints are going to be on the final product.

 

Robert