While The Martian might be among the strongest contenders for Best Picture right now, there is no telling which way the race will go from here. We’re heading into the last gasp of the Oscar race, believe it or not, because by the end of this month it will be time for many key precursor groups to start voting.
Fifteen years ago Ridley Scott was up for Best Director for Gladiator. It was the strangest year for Best Picture, one that no other year has really matched since. Ridley Scott’s film was the one to beat. But it had strong competition from two films: Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic.
Ang Lee won the Directors Guild Award, which which set the stage for an unpredictable Best Picture winner. I remember this year very well because it was the first year I started Oscar blogging. Back then, there weren’t really blogs, however. We all built our sites on html before blogging software came along, before opinion-based writing dominated all media, before the Oscars were a 24/7, year round business, before Facebook, before Twitter – practically before cell phones.
Gladiator was up against two art films that year, though it was universally beloved by the public and critics alike. With rave reviews, a bravura performance by Russell Crowe and a massive box office hit, looking back it seems impossible any film could have beaten Gladiator. There was a current running through the Oscars that would continue for the next 15 years and eventually lead the Academy to change their Best Picture nominee count from five to ten. It was partly due to the ongoing chatter by people like me, and partly due to the ballooning number of film critics and their awards that guided the Oscars away from blockbusters and toward art house fare.
This has been mostly a good ride but perhaps a failed experiment. What it has seemed to do, more than anything else, is alienate the general public from the Oscar race. Moving the dates up a few weeks for nominations and final ballots has only intensified the separation, as the Oscar race is almost decided before many Oscar movies even open in theaters.
It’s 2015 and Ridley Scott is back, now with his highest grossing film to date, beating Gladiator’s $187 million and easily headed towards $200 million. The more money it makes, the more popular it becomes. The more popular it becomes, the harder its chances of winning. Without adjusting for inflation, let’s look at the Oscar winners and their box office take:
Birdman cost: $18 million, made $42 million.
12 Years a Slave cost: $20 million, made $56 million.
Argo cost $44 million, made $136 million.
The Artist cost $15 million, made $44 million.
The King’s Speech cost $15 million, made $135 million.
The Hurt Locker cost $15 million, made $17 million
Slumdog Millionaire cost $15 million, made $141 million
No Country for Old Men made $74 million.
The Departed cost $90 million, made $132 million
Crash cost $6.5 million, made $54 million
Million Dollar Baby cost $30 million, made $100 million
Return of the King cost $94 million, made $377 million
Chicago cost $45 million, made $170 million
A Beautiful Mind cost $58 million, made $170 million
Gladiator cost $103 million, made $187 million
The Martian cost around $100 million, and has made $197 million so far in 6 weeks. It is not like Return of the King, probably, and is more like The Departed, or especially Ridley Scott’s Gladiator in terms of budget, profit and popularity.
With The Martian so likable and earning much of its box office from word of mouth, it seems like the film to beat, at least right now. What the Oscar race has seemed to be about in recent year, however, is not rewarding the popular favorite. In fact, doing almost the opposite. American Sniper did not win last year. Avatar did not win in 2009. Gravity didn’t win in 2013. The voters seem to care less about the films that really are achievements in their industry and more about what kind of films most reflect their standards and sensibilities.
Avatar, had it won, would have sent the wrong message. Actors rule the Academy and there was no way they were going to allow a film to win where they were essentially enhanced or replaced by performance capture. Gravity was a film driven almost entirely by visual effects and had only two, count ‘em two, actors in it. American Sniper was just too right-wing to ever be the preferred choice of the mostly liberal Academy. Besides, last year they were busy celebrating Birdman for its condemnation of superhero movies, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Still, one has to wonder if there is still any sort of prejudice against films that are popular with broader audiences, even ones that are as well reviewed as The Martian has been. Oscar voters will have options for their winner this year. Several of them fit the bill for what defines a Best Picture, though each comes with its own invisible barrier to make them seem like an easy frontrunner.
Spotlight – about journalists and not as emotionally impactful as some other films. Still, it fits the bill of an Oscar winner in that it’s not hated by anyone. Sometimes that’s all you need.
Room – is it liked more by women than men? It keeps winning audience awards, which would discount that argument.
Brooklyn – a film nobody can hate, but will it have enough “gravitas” being that women are only half as valuable as men in terms of Best Picture?
The Revenant – Inarritu just won, how could he win again so soon? Plus too dark. Plus too violent.
Joy – would be the first film centered around a sole female lead to win since Chicago. Also, an unknown entity in terms of what it will ultimately be about.
When I look at The Martian up against these other films I see the one that isn’t like the others. I see one that could be hindered by being set in the near future. And one that could be punished for being that successful; “if that many people love the movie how could it be any good?”
The other thing I see with a potential Martian win is that Ridley Scott will finally collect the Best Director Oscar that has eluded him these past 15 years. I also see a movie that could unite the Oscars and public in a big way once again. That isn’t such a bad thing when you’re talking about a movie this good.
The irony of this year’s race for me personally is that I spent my first year blogging about how Gladiator should not win, and how Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should. In the years since, I’ve come to see Gladiator as a formidable Best Picture winner and though Steven Soderbergh’s Oscar for Traffic was a well deserved win for a great director – it is impossible to see how he could have beaten both Ang Lee and Ridley Scott.
Scott has been nominated three times by the DGA and three times by the Academy. Despite his having reinvented the sci-fi genre with Alien and Blade Runner, he was only acknowledged by the Academy when he wasn’t in Sci-Fi mode – Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and Thelma and Louise. That genre prejudice could have been eliminated by both Avatar and Gravity’s nominations.
Even if we’re talking about Best Picture maybe going to a film other than The Martian, doesn’t it kind of, sort of seem like Ridley Scott could be our Best Director frontrunner? If you look at the big guns in the category you see:
Ridley Scott, The Martian
Steven Spielberg, Bridge of Spies
George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
David O. Russell, Joy
Quentin Tarantino, The Hateful Eight
Todd Haynes, Carol
Danny Boyle, Steve Jobs
Then you see the other films that could be vying for Best Picture and they all have relatively unknown directors, or directors just making their mark in the industry:
Spotlight – Tom McCarthy
Room – Lenny Abrahamson
Brooklyn – John Crowley
Black Mass – Scott Cooper
The Big Short – Adam McKay
Beasts of No Nation – Cary Fukunaga
The race could be redefined by new movies that aren’t on our radar, but from the looks of it, I’d say Ridley Scott has more than a great shot at mirroring his run in 2000, and stands a good chance of winning either Director or Picture or both.
Current Best Director Predictions:
Ridley Scott, The Martian
Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
Alejandro G. Inarritu, The Revenant
John Crowley, Brooklyn
Quentin Tarantino, The Hateful Eight; or Lenny Abrahamsson, Room
Best Picture predictions
The Martian
Spotlight
Brooklyn
Room
The Revenant
Joy
The Hateful Eight
Carol
Steve Jobs
Black Mass
I haven’t read all of these comments, so maybe I’m just echoing what others have said, but a couple things:
1. Gladiator wasn’t exactly loved by critics. 76% on RT, 64 on metacritic. If we’re just going off of those stats without considering how the film has grown, that actually makes it one of the weaker Best Picture winners of recent times.
2. Sometimes I’m not sure I understand what is really happening in these articles. I love reading them, and I know that they’re well-informed analysis/predictions, but how much does your personal taste enter into things? Because I still have to say that while I share your appreciation of The Martian, I can’t even begin to fathom it winning Best Picture, let alone actually thinking that it deserves to. Do you actually think it deserves to? You predict that it could win, but I also sense that you’re fine with that, which I find to be odd. The Academy isn’t critics, but it’s worth pointing out that The Martian is so acclaimed because everybody likes it, not because everybody thinks its the greatest thing on planet earth. Despite garnering an 80 on metacritic, it only scored two 100s. This is a very good movie, but I don’t see it as one that has the most passionate support. Then again, the Academy aren’t critics, and maybe I’m not talking about what you’re talking about. If it wins, it will be another middle-of-the-road victory, and I wish that pundits wouldn’t ever promote the theory that it would be anything but that.
If you think the Martian has so chance because it isn’t challenging enough must have been asleep when the voters steamrolled the relentlessly mediocre Argo to the win.
I won’t believe The Martian awards hype until the actual nominations come out. But I would be glad if Ridley Scott finally got the BD golden statue.
Oh C’mon Sasha, Bridge of Spies is getting nominated for BP. Even if it’s just a placeholder i’d be pretty surprised if that one misses.
There’s great anticipation for THE FORCE AWAKENS in Nicaragua I’m happy to report #forwhatisworth
but what of their thoughts on CAROL?
I agree that any of that 2000 trio would made a damn fine BP winner. GLADIATOR was an exquisite choice. THE MARTIAN might not even end up in my top 10 of this most formidable year (e.g., 74, 99, 07), but I’m 100% behind him!!
“They voted for 12 Years a Slave without having watched it.”
This is ridiculous. Crude beliefs like this are the worst result of irresponsible Oscar bloggers who have introduced the newest and dumbest Oscar clickbait element into the Oscar conversation.
Namely: “Let’s Look Inside the Head of This Anonymous Oscar Voter and See What Idiotic Crackpot Soundbite We Can Get Him to Say, and Then Pretend It Applies to 6000 Other Voters — 6000 OTHER Voters Who Have Better Things to Do (and More Integrity) than to Spout Spurious Silliness to Oscar Bloggers”
One or two dumbasses in the Academy make the weird and embarrassing admission that they couldn’t bear to watch the finest film of the year, and next thing we know it’s become “common knowledge” that “the Academy chose to award 12 Years a Slave with their highest honor without even watching the fucking thing.”
No. Not true. It’s a dumb thing for one voter to say and it’s fairly dumb if anyone believes that most voters are that dumb.
Not even a handful of mentally ill voters would mark 12 Years a Slave as their favorite movie if they didn’t watch it. Were there voters who didn’t watch it? No doubt. But why would they feel compelled to vote for it? Are they afraid of Jesus watching them mark their secret ballots?
Sorry to be so blunt, but yeesh.
They are afraid of public opinion, like every politician is. The point is that, given the Oscar race evolution in 2013, the fact they voted for 12YAS by default is not only totally plausible but the only plausible scenario. They liked GRAVITY the most but they had to be tactful and they were. Moral blackmail.
They are afraid of public opinion
No they’re not.
Individual voters who vote anonymously have nothing to fear from public opinion. Nothing. They don’t have any vested personal interest whatsoever or any fear of ANY personal consequence.
By the way, 99% of politicians do not give a damn about the American populace at large either. What fantasyland are you living in where you think Millonaires in Unassailable Positions of Power give two shits about what you or I want them to do?
Do you honestly think there are ANY Academy members who thought:
Get real. Only 6 million Americans bought a ticket to 12 Years a Slave. That means 312 million Americans DID NOT SEE IT.
So explain to me again who this anonymous timid Oscar voter is “afraid” of offending?
If the Oscar voters are so terrified of “the public” then how come American Sniper didn’t win BP? 43 million of the loudest angriest most hateful and most vocal Americans alive bought tickets to see that crude bloodthirsty travesty.
Was the Academy afraid of those 43 million people? No. After 1000 conservative Oscar voters nominated it, the entire rest of the Academy snubbed the shit out of it.
Then tell me how are they suddenly afraid of the 6 million educated and civilized Americans who care enough to pay to see 12 Years a Slave. (That’s less than 2% of “the public”)
When I say public opinion I mean the bubble. It’s all about the bubble. Not the world, not the entirety of american ticket buyers. What is the bubble? It’s the twitterverse, the cool parties, the mesh of social relations held by the Academy members. What resonates in the bubble is what is relevant. What is relevant affects the race. In 2013 12YAS narrative was the most relevant thing and could not be blown away. It takes a bubble to bump a bubble. That’s why sometimes the industry withdraws in its own bubble and wins. It happened (to me rightfully) last year.
I just don’t buy into this concept that imagines any individual voter sitting on his bidet in Bel Air filling out his Oscar ballot ever for one moment stops to think about how his choices are going to affect or reflect on the image of AMPAS.
There is literally no repercussion on that voter or on the Academy for any of the choices they make. Hundreds of bad winners; hundreds of great winners over the years. None of the winners or losers ever has any resulting ramifications for the Academy and certainly not for any individual voter.
For me, this kind of thinking that “the Academy is afraid of what the Public might think” is too much like the strange impression that “The Academy” operates under some sort collective consciousness or sentient hive mentality.
I’ve said before, these are 6000 of the some of the most stubborn, pampered, spoiled, creative, independent individuals in America, and not only can I not imagine them giving up their stubborn independence when it comes time to fill out their private personal ballots — I just never see any evidence that the voters have any idea about how to maintain a consistently sophisticated image for their AMPAS club.
They continually make clumsy choices that cause true movielovers to groan and regard them with dismay and scorn.
So who the hell do these imaginary conciliatory voters think they’re trying to appease? — and if some of them are really attempting to make Oscar watchers happy, then how come they usually do such a crap job of actually ever making us happy?
You see it differently Corvo, and that’s ok. You’ve made your case and I’ve made mine.
I don’t think individual Oscar voters ever worry about what we think or how we feel about their choices. You think they do.
Funnily enough, while I know race is a far touchier issue, I think you can almost apply your line of reasoning to the Academy awarding Birdman over Boyhood. They had to have known that there would be backlash. They had to have known the notions (whether true or false) that Birdman appeals most to this pampered subset who ended up awarding it Best Picture. Yet they didn’t think it through in this case, they sat there and voted for what they liked with no consequence, which is exactly what you’re saying. And I actually believe that there was more outrage over Birdman beating such a once in a lifetime achievement (Boyhood) than there would have been had Gravity beaten 12 Years a Slave.
But still, I don’t know. I don’t believe many voted without having seen 12 Years a Slave, but at the same time, I can honestly see some voters thinking that they have to award this important picture to avoid charges of racism. I mostly agree with you, but the historical issue of race is just a weird psychological element here that I don’t think can be easily discounted.
I really don’t think that there would have been much outrage for 12 Years losing to Gravity, seeing that it was a tight race going into the final ballot.
I wonder how Julianne Moore will vote.
I wonder how Julianne Moore will vote.
Julianne Moore as Julianne Moore always votes responsibly.
Julianne Moore in Maps to the Stars looks as if she missed the ballot deadline.
Corvo, my friend, this just bothers me so much.
Please, in all calm seriousness, tell me what does it matter to Helen Mirren or Fassbender or Cher or Ed Asner or Scorsese or Beyonce or Meryl or Joe the Sound Guy if “public opinion” makes a little noise about an Oscar winner that millions of people don’t like and millions more people do like?
What possible difference does it make to an individual voter what the public thinks? How does it affect the life of a millionaire filmmaker if Twitter gets pissed off for a day or two about an Oscar winner or loser?
Thank you, Ryan!… This “general opinion” about 12 Years a Slave’s win is SO annoying…
Exactly right, especially at age 77, Sir RIDLEY SCOTT took on a massive undertaking and knocked it out of the park. His modern style of Directing in “The Martian” is really magnatic. This time I am pritty convinced that he will resonate with the Academy voters of his branch.
George Miller has no chance. Nolan’s genre films made more money and were bigger parts of the zeitgeist than Mad Max, yet he’s still never been nominated for Best Director despite three DGA nominations.
It’s not really accurate to say Gladiator was beloved by critics. It has one of the worst Metacritic scores of any BP winner.
Though it is indeed well-liked and has strong box office word of mouth, I don’t think The Martian is something that voters respect in a way that will translate to awards wins. What precursor is it possibly going to win? Surely not NYFCC, LA film critics or any of the other cities. Not Indie Spirits. Will NBR even have it on their top 10? Honestly, I don’t know. Is the HFPA really going to choose it in a comedy race over The Big Short or Trumbo? Murky.
It’s a well-liked movie, but it does not have the superior technology narratives that Avatar and Gravity had. It doesn’t have the cool or wow factor of Inception. It doesn’t have the beauty of Life of Pi or Hugo. The problem with The Martian is that it is in no way comparable to any of the big, visual effects BP nominees of the last 6 years aside from the fact that it takes place in space.
It’s a frontrunner for a nomination in a number of categories, but that does not mean it’s the frontrunner to win any of them. Surely, it is unlikely to win any.
Surely everybody here knows the critics wins are terrible Oscar predictors. The NBR and the LA film critics haven’t picked an Oscar winner in five years or maybe more. NY picked Boyhood and Linklater last year. I’m hardly an expert but even I know you need to look at the guilds and the number of potential noms there. The Martian looks to have the DGA, the PGA, and the WGA, as well as a number of the other crafts. Maybe SAG for Damon. He’s been shooting a Bourne movie and hasn’t been available for campaigning but did do a SAG screening. And Fox has cannily positioned it at HFPA to increase visibility at a crucial time.
The Martian is much cool-er and wow-er Inception (I liked Inception). It’s probably not as beautiful as Life of Pi (has any movie ever been?) but is more beautiful than Hugo and more majestic than either. Also infinitely more important. Because it shows us a beautiful future that all we have to do to achieve is want.
Well, I’m sorry but I don’t understand how you can say that the DGA, PGA and WGA looks good for The Martian. Not only is there nothing available to us to suggest that it’ll compete there, but you’re completely ignoring the fact that all of the people that win critics awards are generally nominated for Oscars though they might not ultimately win. Yes, LAFC and NBR are outliers in the critics group swell, but their winners still pick up significant momentum sometimes because of wins there.
The point of my comment is that even if The Martian somehow hits with guilds (I don’t think it will), it will have lost a significant amount of steam after having not come up–in ANY category–in a majority of critics group awards. The reason that films like The Artist, Birdman, Boyhood, American Hustle, Zero Dark Thirty, The Social Network, etc. became threats and picked up many, many nominations is because their name kept appearing on critics group lists as the season progressed. Spotlight, Room, Carol, etc. are all films that will get much more press during this time as press for The Martian slides.
Recent WGA, PGA and DGA winners are all films that picked up notices at critics groups. Those critics group wins and nominations helped secure them wins at the guilds.
I’m seeing The Martian being near the top in MANY ten best lists. Dude, The Martian is not only in, but, is in as a co-frontrunner. And, as has been pointed out by Sasha, it pretty much did that under its own steam. Fox wasn’t behind the scenes manipulating an awards strategy for The Martian. The awards talk happened spontaneously because lots of people genuinely love it. And it just keeps picking up more and more momentum. It out grossed Gravity in the same cycle for the first time just this week. I suppose it could be in trouble if the Academy suddenly devolops a severe case of amnesia and forgets how much they like it. Otherwise, it’s all good. And if it ends up losing to Brooklyn or Spotlight or some other movie people love, that’s all good, too. But to pretend it won’t have lots of noms when sites like this one are predicting it all over the place? Well, whatever makes you happy.
Believe me, I was rooting for The Martian before I saw it. Last year I championed Interstellar because I truly believe The Academy is close to awarding a sci-fi, effects-driven film Best Picture. The steady progress of these films is evidence of that. Sadly, Interstellar came up short. It’s much more likely that it’ll be Passengers next year.
Sci-fi, effects-driven films are very similar to lavish, period-piece films because they are the most capable of building branch-by-branch support within The Academy.
The reason I dropped The Martian from my predictions once I saw it at NYFF is because it is not challenging enough. Likability is a huge factor in a win, but I think voters want to believe that they were challenged. The branches want to know that cinematographers, visual effects teams, etc. overcame challenges (like new technology, budget concerns, etc.) to produce extraordinary work.
The only thing extraordinary about The Martian is that Scott didn’t make a flop. There’s no new technology narrative like Gravity. There’s no incredible CGI of imagined planets, black holes, etc. like Interstellar. There’s no immaculate IMAX 3D work like Avatar, Life of Pi and Hugo. There’s no dense script and far-out concept like Inception. These are things that make the sci-fi, effects-driven films successful with The Academy. The Martian has none of it. It’s too palatable. It’s too easy.
Lol, at the “great movies are easy”‘remark. Perhaps it’s better to say that great directors/writers/actors/craftspeople make it look easy. So you think it was easy to take an incredibly wonky, science-filled, sweary (but genius) book, which in some ways read like a Wikipedia article, and turn it into a crisp, beautiful, truly funny, PG-13 rated story which honored the science but didn’t get bogged down with it, won over the book’s incredibly demanding audience but also brought along the general public, navigated incredibly tricky changes in tone, and overcame difficult technical challenges by inventing a system to co-ordinate altering frame rates in 3D cameras to subtly simulate Mars gravity? I guess that teensy partial list of the thousands of correct decisions which made The Martian this critically successful doesn’t impress you. Glad I’m not in your shoes.
you’re misunderstanding my use of the word “easy.” You’re also misquoting me because I never said “great movies are easy.” Where are you extrapolating that from?
The Martian is easy because it’s easily liked, it’s accessible to general audiences, it takes no risks visually or story-wise. It isn’t offensive by any stretch of the imagination. To me, that makes it an “easy” film.
It takes an excellent director to make a film full of hard science both accessible and likeable. It’s easy to make ‘challenging’ films by filling screen time with faux science and special effects. ‘The Martian’ asks us to be human again and to appreciate what the best of human beings can do under extreme duress. I think that is what audiences are responding to.
But that’s an EASY thing to ask of people. Asking your audience to travel through dreams (Inception), to completely imagined worlds full of blue creatures (Avatar), watch one man on a boat with animals for an entire film (Life of Pi), travel through time and consider love as a concept of science (Interstellar) are CHALLENGING.
You know what would have made The Martian challenging? Having the entire first third of the film be ONLY Watney on Mars. Or maybe including the grueling trek that Watney takes across Mars to get to the vehicle he uses to escape instead of breezing through that part. Or maybe investigating deeper some of the reasons why Jeff Daniels’ character was so against the decision to send the crew back to save him (instead that conflict was presented and solved in one short scene, as were many other conflicts).
It really isn’t. Sadly many of us now don’t possess the mental or emotional stamina to stay with, respond to, and engage with material that is fundamentally human in nature – asking us to look at ourselves. We’re so used to being fed pyrotechnics and fantasy. We are so addicted to having things done for us on-screen, and in the media generally, that many of us have largely lost the ability – even the desire – to bring our own imaginations into play. A bad film entertains us. A good film requires us to put more of ourselves into it. A great one makes it an attractive proposition to do the latter and so we are drawn to stay with it, to make the effort and see beyond the surface.
The films you mention are entertaining and we don’t really have to do much to engage with them. Nothing wrong with that. But it seems that you want The Martian too be one of those films that give us all the answers (e.g. showing us why a character did something …) rather than to be the film it is – one that trusts us to apply our own intelligence and imagination to the dilemmas and the unanswered questions.
That’s just dumb. You’re obviously just setting up arbitrary hoops, when it’s obvious that those hoops would have made the movie either less meaningful or 30 minutes longer. At which point you’d be complaining it was too long. Sigh.
Hoops?! Lmao. These aren’t hoops, they’re things that made the book fantastic because they create tension and suspense–things the movie lacks.
For the record, I NEVER complain that a movie is too long. I usually complain they’re not long enough.
You’re absolutely right about The Martian being “easy.” It’s smart for sure. But it’s comfort food. It’s exactly what some people are looking for, and that’s fine, but those people are certainly admiring the fact that it’s smart and well-executed without needing to be challenging.
And I love your examples of how The Martian could have been more challenging. I’d have loved to see Damon make that trek rather than cutting back and forth and giving very little sense of time passing and the peril associated with it.
Yeah, I had a problem with those choices as well…
I agree that The Martian stands a good chance with the Academy, but I think only a certain type of critic will have it near the top of their top ten lists. The massive Film Comment and Village Voice polls, for example, probably won’t have The Martian in their top 20’s. When metacritic tallies up the year-end lists from all their sources and beyond, I imagine that The Martian will finish in the top ten, but mostly because a lot of mainstream critics will have it somewhere in their top tens, but not necessarily near the top. We’ll see.
You don’t think Martian is hitting the guilds? LOL what kinda delusion? Did you know Ridley Scott is getting a lifetime achievement award from the visual effects guild?
because lifetime achievement awards always correspond with winning standard awards in the same year. maybe you’re confused about which one of is delusional?
+1
The point about the precursors is key.
Barring something extremely weird happening, I agree this is probably Ridley’s year. The Martian is a groundbreaking movie in some ways (diversity which never feels forced, but is an honest reflection of the science community [thank you, Andy Weir], earthy humor combined w/ hard sci-fi, the pro-science orientation) and an encouraging throwback in other ways (an intelligent four quadrant film which is also beautifully executed from a crafts standpoint). I am somewhat amused to hear Birdman called the “anti-superhero” movie. I guess it must feel good to bash superhero movies in other, “important” movies. But if you want a REPLACEMENT for superhero movies? How about an intelligent hard sci-fi that also makes $200M+ domestic? And doesn’t make us feel dirty in the morning.
The diversity is strictly among the male characters. Explain how diverse the female characters are.
Women in command position, women in authoritative positions all over the place. Obviously the woman from the Chinese space agency is also in an administrative position.
Like whoa. One Chinese woman. All the other ones aren’t even different dress sizes, or have different hairdos
Lol, are lincolnwuzrobd and Benutty the same person? Because you keep posting within minutes of one another.
Have you ever seen us in a room at the same time? 😮
I love Wiig and I LOVE Chastain, but both of them were HORRIBLY miscast.
Yup. One of my biggest surprises after reading the book was seeing the female scientist surnamed “Park” cast as a white chick!
It’s a real shame that 12 Years a Slave seems to be garnering a reputation as a film the Academy was guilted into awarding the Oscar. It was the best of the nominees (in a very good year), and probably the best film to win since No Country for Old Men. And, honestly, I thought it was far, far better than Gravity.
Anyway, go Mad Max. Be the first summer blockbuster since 2010 to get nominated (and, as in that case, be wholly deserving).
Yes, I think that the post-Oscar reputation that 12 Years has received is sad. I think it had an effect on Selma’s disaster nomination morning—the we-honored-a-black-film-last-year idiotic mantra. I would say that your assessment that it is the best Best Picture since 2007 is spot on. (While I thought Gravity was better, I am very happy that Gravity lost to such an excellent film.)
Post-Oscar turns in reputation are a funny bunch. Crash and Shakespeare In Love are two that leap to mind, but to an extent, Slumdog, Beautiful Mind, King’s Speech, and Hurt Locker, each have suffered for what could have / should have won. (Sad that Birdman isn’t suffering, as it should, for winning to a far superior film—and that would be any of the other seven nominees, especially Boyhood and Selma.)
On the flip side, many losing films seem to have improved in their historical reputation: Social Network, Life of Pi, and Gravity to an extent; the latter seen as the gold standard for scientific-based science fiction.
Birdman isn’t suffering for now but it will, in a few years. It’s an empty and pretentious film and pretty much in line with everything Innartu has done. Just give it time.
Which as much as I hated BM and Innaritu as an auteur, I am looking forward to the Revenant.
Whiners like you make the Birdman win more enjoyable.
I thought BIRDMAN was the best of the nominated films last year.
Gravity is the gold standard for scientific-based science fiction? Hmmm… Did you realize that every time she goes to another orbital craft, that craft should have already been destroyed? And that those craft are not, in fact, next door neighbors? I would consider it the gold standard for an IMAX thrill ride, however. But the slim story and manipulative dead child trope undermines home viewing, IMO.
Regardless of the flaws, and there are some more you don’t list, it is the one that is being compared to. Interstellar and The Martian were held against Gravity. My point is not which is most accurate, or which is the most authentic, but rather which film will film critics be used as such.
Selma was a historically inaccurate film to the nth degree – although it certainly wasn’t the first of its kind to be so. Life of Pi – despite Ang Lee’s superb efforts – is primarily a CGI movie. Fine if you like that kind of thing. Gravity is a fantasy not science fiction: the ‘science’ upon which it’s based is as leaky as a colander. Compared to Gravity (and indeed to Interstellar), The Martian has a far more authentic scientific grounding.
I agree that Gravity has issues with science, but so does The Martian. (That windstorm just could not happen, nor could duct tape and a large sheet of plastic could have withstood the pressurization, nor could he lift the nose cone with such ease, nor . . . ) But the style in which both films are presented grounded in science (addressing a lack of gravity, the great difficulty of deviating from a trajectory) is where I am coming from. Both films made the viewer feel like they were there in a plausible realistic setting despite how fantastic some of the minor liberties with some of the science may be.
In life with clarity of time, we can often look back and see flawed decision making. Hence those “post-Oscar turns” can occur in reputation. A good Oscar voter is essentially trying to predict the future – which movies will stand the test of time. History has the final say irrespective of the machinations of yearly Oscar campaigns, strategies, trendy political or social influences, etc. In 10 or 20 years we will see how well the voters did this year. 🙂
I actually think Birdman was the best of the nominees (though Selma was a close second), and I think the backlash over its win is unfortunate. Now, had it beaten Gone Girl or Interstellar, I might feel differently, but as it is, I think they made the right choice out of a decidedly imperfect lineup.
Virtually every Best Picture winner in history is considered lesser than another nominee, or to a film that was snubbed. There are only a handful of “undisputed” Best Pictures in Oscar history — Casablanca, All Quiet on the Western Front, Best Years Of Our Lives, Schindler’s List, Lawrence Of Arabia, On The Waterfront, Godfather, Bridge On The River Kwai. Maaaaybe you can stretch it to Amadeus, Silence Of The Lambs, From Here To Eternity and Lost Weekend, too.
They voted for 12 Years a Slave without having watched it. When politics overcomes artistic merit it’s a bad thing for cinema. Gravity should have won.
It’s a damn shame they did that, because in my opinion, 12YaS is decidedly the better film. Gravity is technically very impressive–that is by no means in dispute–but I think the writing is fairly weak, and felt thus from the moment Kowalski was revealed to be another astronaut-as-glorified-hotrodder (and his reappearance near the end is so absurd I’m amazed more reviews didn’t call it out). It wouldn’t have held up as a winner whatsoever, and I say this as someone who wanted to love it.
12 Years, Her, Nebraska, Wolf, and Captain Phillips were all more deserving.
It seems you didn’t realize that Kowalski near the end was just a hallucination, not the real Kowalski.
No, I’m aware. And I think it was a terrible bit of writing–a hallucination ex machina, if you will–that further took me out of the already contrived narrative.
What a hideous comment.
Which is why the best film should win every year regardless of the “narrative”. It cheapens any movie if people think they won for the wrong reasons. If you truly love a film, trying to get it to win through guilt or manipulation, in my opinion, means you don’t think it could win on merit. That’s what would have happened if BOREHOOD had won last year. Thank goodness the Academy didn’t fall for it. 12YAS deserved the win and so will THE MARTIAN if it does. But if people make a win about Ridley Scott being old then it will have a future backlash.
lol @ “BOREHOOD”
no one even talks about that film anymore because it was a hype movie. it shouldn’t have won anything, ever.
So far, I think that the nominees for Best director should be:
Steven Spielberg, Bridge of Spies
Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
John Crowley, Brooklyn
Duke Johnson and Charlie Kaufman, Anomalisa
Pete Docter and Ronnie Del Carmen, Inside Out
I don’t know why directors of great animated motion pictures are not considered!!!!
Why don’t critics, bloggers, people, everybody, start talking about their achievements as worth of F recognition?!
I cannot accept a list of Best Directors that doesn’t include Inside Out!
Can I just say that it is such a joy coming to this website and seeing all the gorgeous Brooklyn banners? I want to print them all out and put them on my wall
Ang lee should have won and the film as well ,but a foreign language film will never win bp. Gladiator is one of the f the ten worst best picture winners.
I still remember watching Gladiator for the first time. I was in awe. The visuals, the epic journey, the classic revenge arc, the score – oh the score!! Still one of my all-time favourite films. Always moves me. It deserved BP back then and still now.
Gladiator is awesome. Crouching Tiger and Traffic are too. It was a strong trio.
Agreed!
Same here…
“Avatar, had it won, would have sent the wrong message. Actors rule the
Academy and there was no way they were going to allow a film to win
where they were essentially enhanced or replaced by performance capture.
Gravity was a film driven almost entirely by visual effects and had
only two, count ‘em two, actors in it. American Sniper was just too
right-wing to ever be the preferred choice of the mostly liberal
Academy. Besides, last year they were busy celebrating Birdman for its
condemnation of superhero movies, not that there’s anything wrong with
that.”
Avatar didn’t win because a) everyone thinks James Cameron is kind of a douche and b) it was kind of a crappy movie. At the end of the day, the majority of Academy voters simply didn’t want to hold their nose and vote for a big office hit “phenomenon” that wasn’t any good. Avatar would’ve been easily the weakest BP winner of the last 15 years, probably longer. Same goes for American Sniper — it wasn’t as much the right-wing stance as much as it was that the movie was pretty lame. This is perhaps the one silver lining of AMPAS’ flawed balloting system, which is that while it’s hard for a really great iconoclastic masterpiece to ever win Best Picture again, it’s equally hard for a true mediocrity. No more Out Of Africas, Bravehearts, Chariots of Fires, Crashes clogging up the works.
As for Gravity, by all accounts 2013 seemed like one of the closest races in history. It didn’t lose because it was a two-hander special effects-driven picture….it lost because it had the misfortune of running in 2013 when Gravity would’ve won Best Picture in probably any other year of the last decade.
Avatar lost just for the first reason you listed, that has nothing to do with cinema. That’s why it was a bad decision.
Avatar lost because it is awful.
Because it was too successful and too antiwar. Hurt Locker was a political choice.
SPOILERS –> Actually looking at it just now, that photo of Crowe from GLADIATOR kinda looks like the Fonzie pose Damon does in THE MARTIAN. 🙂
Anyway, if I had any money I’d put it on Ridley Scott for the win right now. There’s no good reason not to give it to him, no matter what else happens. I think THE MARTIAN is a lock for a nomination at this point. I mean it would be considered a huge snub at this point. There’s not enough coming down the pike for it to not get one.
SICARIO is still my favorite of the year so I hope it makes it despite your misgivings. There are probably people out there who really liked PRISONERS a couple years back and I remember thinking that was a contender. So there could be some goodwill carryover. I hope so anyway.
Assuming your list is in order, you’ve got BROOKLYN and ROOM pretty high. They’re both “smaller” movies right? Will they be able to generate the passionate support to get enough number one votes?
I know everyone else is sort of dumping BLACK MASS. But I still think it’s in good stead because the voters don’t work like we do. We saw it a while back. Assume a lot of them won’t even get around to watching their screeners until the holidays. That could take out any staleness most people might be feeling. Unless people really hate it, then that’s a different story. But I think it’s quality will carry it through the race. Just my opinion.
Here are the offical betting odds for THE MARTIAN – from UK British Bookmakers:
Sir RIDLEY SCOTT – Best Director current at 13/1 = i.e. for $10 you win $140
THE MARTIAN – Best Picture current at 20/1 = i.e. for $10 you could collect $ 210.
Well, I think these betting odds show really good value at this early stage of the race.
I think the bookies will do just fine on this one…
Well, Actually the bookies have shortened dramaticly all betting odds on Ridley Scott for Best Directing of “THE MARTIAN”, the man behind sci-fi classics as “Alien” and “Blade Runner,”he is still waiting to win an Oscar. He has contended three times for helming: “Thelma & Louise” in 1991, Best Picture champ “Gladiator” in 2000 and “Black Hawk Down” in 2001. After a few recent misfires, the overdue Sir Ridley now has a film which should resonate with the directors branch of the Academy. At age 77, he took on a massive undertaking and knocked it out of the park. Even if voters don’t believe his film has actually all gravitas to be a Best Picture champ, he has a good chance of winning this consolation prize of Best Directing, as did Cuaron in 2013 and Ang Lee for “Life of Pi.” However, Scott’s film does very well at the box offices so far next to me here in Europe and hopefully the same happens in the US. The UK bookies will have to pay out a massive figure for a win of SIR RIDLEY SCOTT – looking forward for that scenario – with my best regards –
I’m slightly more willing to believe in Ridley Scott’s chances of winning Best Director than the movie’s of winning Best Picture (the arguments make a lot more sense for that one), but I still think it’s unlikely, simply because, while not as strong under the preferential system, the correlation between the two awards remains a rather difficult hurdle to overcome – like when people were saying Linklater could win Best Director last year, even though Birdman would win Best Picture… These split predictions, as Sasha has often noted, hardly ever come true, the 12 Years/Cuaron split being one of the very, very few exceptions throughout history – more often, the split is an unexpected one. For this reason, I’d still bet against it at the moment, with a reasonable amount of confidence, even without any precursor results available.
For several years I have been running this type of business already quite successful. Actually, I finance myself constantly during movie award season my next summer hollidays mostly in southern Italy/ Europe. Obviously, I agree with you that Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor/Actress and sometimes even Best Screenplay must be considered or calculated in relationship all together as one thing.. But sometimes they even don’t. That’s the moment
I am patiently waiting for. By putting some bucks on reasonable outsiders when the early market is still unconviced especially by cathing up early high betting odds for the GOLDEN GLOBES or the OSCAR markets makes my living very profitable. Thanks to Sasha’s site and all you followers. Cheers, with my warmest regards.:)
Oh, yeah, I know. My work is related to the betting industry as well – though I only bet myself for fun, mostly. But, anyway, betting early, when the odds on some outcomes are unreasonably high, is a great way to make a profit, I completely agree. And not just on underdogs – the favorites usually have better odds early on as well, especially in the Oscar race; for example, I bet on Birdman early last year, right after the PGA win, if I remember correctly, so before it also did the SAG-DGA double, based on logical deductions, and, of course, I got much, much better odds than if I’d bet on it after that, even though, after the PGA win, it should probably already have been the favorite, or at least the co-favorite, in my opinion. I’m not even saying betting on The Martian is a bad bet right now. I just don’t believe it’ll work out in this particular case. 🙂 Because of the genre thing, mostly (but not exclusively). But it could, of course. I’ll be the first to switch if it wins the PGA…
Well, it depends, actually… 🙂 If it wins the PGA AND it does well enough with the other precursors… Otherwise, even a PGA win could, potentially, be an anomaly. You should never completely disregard even that possibility.
Cheers!
Well , oh yeah, it’s funny then you know what I am all talking about.:) yes I do remember correctly the very hour when PGA made their announcments, i took odds for Birdman of 15/1 at ladbrokes/UK, williamhill/UK for Best Picture/Oscars and 8/1 for Best Director/Oscars. Yeah you see it was a very nice profitable way to finance 4 x weeks summer holidays in Southern Italy/Europe. I am looking forward for some reasonable results this season again. Why not ? Best Luck, it’s always a pleassure talking to you 🙂 ALWAYS AT YOUR VIP BETTING SERVICE
🙂 I wasn’t quite that fast… I did it, like, the next day, or something. (I don’t really like to rush things – I had to evaluate the newly-formed statistical big picture first.) And I didn’t bet anywhere near as much as you, I imagine. Like I said, I bet for fun. I definitely didn’t finance any holidays with the winnings… 🙂
A pleasure talking to you as well!
Re:-Birdman lost Best Original Screenplay to The Grand Budapest Hotel – 2015.
It’s funny as you mentioned that missfire story in one of your previous stats.
You are right!
Same happened to me last time. Let’s make a long story short.
Although I am looking always for the best oppertunities making some reasonable & profitable bets on the OSCARS, sometimes – (hopefully not too often) – I’ll have to find myself on the wrong side of Hollywood’s famous „Walk of Stars“.
LOL: You know what ? That’s my little secret and please (psst, psst. don’t tell it to Mom !)
Here are my running bets so far for 2016:
BP – JOY at 8/1 and THE MARTIAN at 20/1 and THE REVENANT 6/1
BD – SIR RIDLEY SCOTT at 20/1
BEST ACTOR – LEONARDO DICAPRIO at 5/2
BEST ACTRESS – JENNIFFER LAWRENCE at 8/1
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR – MARK RYLANCE at 25/1
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS – ALICIA VIKANDER at 9/2
Any questions, it’s just fine, given any help or assistance, will be always a big pleasure.
🙂 Well, as I said, I don’t like to make bets until at least some precursors have chimed in… I usually wait until late in the race to make my bets, and only sometimes bet early. I probably should do what you do more, but I’m not a pro bettor, like I said, so I don’t really care that much about maximizing my profits. I trust my intuition, but I prefer not to bet based exclusively on that. Especially since, for me, the fun part of the race is the end part, evaluating the stats, interpreting them correctly, trying to call the tougher races…
Anyway, those all look like nice bets, especially the acting ones. As for suggestions, I think you know what my suggestion would be at this point: don’t bet against Spotlight! 🙂 I would maybe drop The Revenant and get Spotlight in there, and I doubt you could go wrong with those 3. Even with The Revenant you should be able to make a decent profit, maybe, after including Spotlight – I see Spotlight has odds of 4 to 1 on a lot of sites, so you can definitely make a profit betting on just those 4 to win BP. And you can bet more, if you want to ensure a bigger profit. You know, sure bet style (equal returns)… I would very much like your winning chances with such a bet – in fact, I’ll make that bet myself, for a smallish amount (without The Revenant, though, because I doubt the back-to-back thing is going to happen), now that you’ve gotten me interested. 🙂 I’ve never tried it this early, but, sure, why not?!
But, yeah, leaving out Spotlight seems like the wrong move to me. I see no justification for it – maybe you can convince me, though!… 🙂
Of course… Sportingbet doesn’t have the Oscars (yet). I hate Sportingbet!… I was only forced to moved over to them because William Hill no longer allowed Romanians to bet. But they suck – I need to switch over to some other site ASAP.
Well, of course as I said before I am a little pro (only 30 years of pratice !) LOL: but as far coming back to the Oscars my system works & even more, you know what ? With my profits I went several times to CONSTANTIA at MAMIA BEACH too. WOW that’s a lovely place! 🙂
I was in Mamaia less than two months ago! 🙂 Yes, off-season (business, not pleasure)… Yeah, it’s very nice out there. I’m not so much a sea person myself (mostly because I’m not a summer person), so I pretty much only go to the seaside when I have business there, but I do like it, especially when it’s NOT impossibly hot and chock-full of tourists. 🙂 I like it half-empty, like it was this October, of course…
Funny, I do understand, you know I liked it -Mamaia – very much – Hotel BAVARIA BLUE- is a nice place to stay – very lux – forte forte buon, pentru moment buona nopte, vedem ascultam veloce. ciao !
:)) Picked up some Romanian, I see… Spelling needs a little work, but very good, otherwise! 🙂
Yeah, I’ve never stayed at Bavaria Blue. I only stay at Hotel Aurora when I’m there. That one’s pretty nice too – but my standards might be a lot lower than yours :), given that I’m a Romanian and we’re not necessarily used to the best conditions… Anyway, I think once, many years ago, actually the first time I went to Mamaia, I might have stayed at a different hotel, but I don’t remember the name.
Cheers and a good night to you too!
Same for you, you must know that I had busness there as well, official importer & representer of Dolce & Gabana, Valentino, Versace all Made in Italy. Ciao and good night. see you next time !
Nice!…
And a lots of MANELE Music 24/24 nonstop FLORIN SALAM & RODIKA-TIMISOARA. BANI BANI BANI……
:)) We’re getting way off-topic here…
You’are right therefore good night and have GOOD LUCK with your OSCAR predictions/selections.
Good luck to you too!
:)) We’re getting way off-topic here…
I love it when that happens.
🙂
Despite all the good predictions of “Spotlight” as a current BP frontrunner I and some of my friends who are FILM DIRECTORS OF THE ACADEMY we all doubt that it will find any love from the Academy. Seven other movies where journalism is an essential part in the storyline never won the category BEST PICTURE. Here they are: All the President’s Men 1976, Citizen Kane 1941, ACE in the Hole 1951, Good Night and Good Luck 2005, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas 1998, The Front Page 1973, State of the Play 2009.v that’s so far coming back to the real TOPIC. – OSCAR PREDICTIONS 😉
So it’s the journalism stat… 🙂 OK, that’s valid. I, for one, don’t think it’s a strong enough argument against a top, top contender, and all of the other 2-3 top contenders have similarly strong (or stronger) arguments of the same nature going against them anyway, except for maybe Joy (because we know so little about it). Plus, there ARE 1-2 precedents in the 1930s/40s – like I mentioned somewhere else, It Happened One Night and, especially, Gentleman’s Agreement, both BP winners, have journalism as a big part of their plots, and journalists as their main male characters, which I think makes the whole stat at least a little debatable, if not more than that -, unlike the space movie thing that The Martian has going against it, to which there really are no exceptions.
The one best argument I’ve heard against Spotlight is that it’s unlikely to actually be LOVED by a lot of people, even though it’s universally LIKED. That I’m a bit worried about (because, while you need to be universally liked with the preferential system, you do also need to be LOVED by quite a few people to even stand a chance in the first place), but, of course, I’ll have to see it first, in order to have a better idea about that. But, apart from this, I don’t see any real problems with its bid right now.
🙂 Please listen to me: Mr & Mrs “JoePopcorn” doen’t like it either. Many official members of the Directors branch of the Acedemy neither, the storyline is eaten up, fad up with most of the moviegoers. That’s it. Nothing more or less. Same story as last year with “BOYHOOD”. “JOY chances are still VERY VERY HIGH for reaching the STARS. And that’s all about it.
Or am I wrong ?
You could be right, for sure… Like I said, their not liking it that much at all is what worries me most as well. We’ll see soon enough! I’m sure you’ve not yet talked to EVERYBODY who votes on the Oscars, so, hopefully, there’s still some suspense left when it comes to Spotlight’s ultimate fate in this race… 🙂
:)))) well, I don’t want to give you any lies, but I am also little bit involved in this Industry. Many HFPA (GOLDEN GLOBES) friends telling me the same answers, as by the way, the foreign press has highly restricted to talk to any person about these subjects at all. So we have to keep it quiet & let the others move, talk, discuss as much they like.
🙂
🙂 Hi there, I would highly recommand you to have a look on Sasha’s home site AWARDSDAILY.
I have put on there a Special Video Podcast from GoldDerby with the newest updated Oscar Predictions so far: Enjoy your visiti, you’ll will find it only GREAT!
I’m not sure where you mean, but is it this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcmFGFHQL_I If so, I’ve already seen it. I listen to all Gold Derby podcasts about the Oscar race. 🙂
:)) Bună seara, Ce faci? – Yes that’s exactly the Video Podcast I meant, but let’s go back especially to the OSCAR race. It looks to me that with all your knowledges about data figures from past award seasons with critics and festival reports included, I think you’ll still haven’t compiled AMPAS result figures into „Logarithmic timescales“ plus „Inverse
function of the exponential function“ into parameter fugures – which are used from the major UK bookies – to create appropriate OSCAR betting odds. You know what –„Multumesc
mult“ this system I am doing exactly the same sort of calculations as they do and for some reasons and their frequently missfires over the past couple of years I was lucky enough to win that sort of math. & brain challenge against WilliamHill or Ladbrokes etc so far paying me off some very nice holdays in Southern Italy or as I mentioned before in Mamaia. Sa este tot pentru moment – I like that challenge at the end caused that I’ll remain in love in Cinema.
Noroc bun with your Oscar predictions – Prietena mia !
Buna seara! Sau, mai degraba, in cazul meu, buna dimineata!… 🙂 (I always advance deep into the morning hours, and sometimes beyond, especially during Oscar season – but that’s just a coincidence, due to the fact that this period also happens to be my least busy time of the year, as far as my other activities go, and so, naturally, I don’t need to keep regular hours as often -, which I realize isn’t very healthy at all, but there it is!…) I’m alright…
No, I’ve never really bothered to perfect an exact algorithm for it (I mean the Best Picture race, which is my specialty, and the one I’m by far the most interested in – the other races I’m not as good at predicting; I do alright at those too, and get things right that most others don’t reasonably often, as, I imagine, most good prognosticators do, but I also get a lot wrong that I probably shouldn’t), because it’s always seemed very easy to me to just give the various precursors their proper weight in my head. I thought about going “full math” on it at one point, but I just realized there was no need for it, since I’ve never had the eventual winner wrong since I’ve been aware of all (or at least most) of the stats involved, anyway, and there have been some seriously unclear races, which have stumbled even some of the very best prognosticators. No, I think I’m quite good at maintaining objectivity (which has always been one of my strengths) and looking at the big picture properly – but, of course, should I ever catch myself not doing that, I’ll most definitely give more thought to writing up an algorithm.
As for the bookies’ algorithm, I’m pretty sure it has its flaws. It shows in some of their odds (though they’re pretty good, most of the time). I’ve not yet seen or heard of a Best Picture algorithm that doesn’t have serious and obvious problems (giving too much weight to certain precursors over others, ignoring short-term stats that are, in fact, obviously on their way to becoming long-term stats – which I think is the main problem with the purely probability-based approach -, ignoring the big picture, the way the stats combine and qualify one another, and so on). So, yeah, no doubt, it can be exploited. Big time!… 🙂 So, I wish you good luck doing that this year as well!…
Cheers!
Buna dimineata!.:::)) Always be an „Early Bird“ at the Oscars!
–
You are telling me, that with not having included „Spotlight“ in some of my well considered Oscar selections, my bets would run on a risky bumpy road up to the ceremony of the Academy. Well with all my respect „Pretina mia“ do you care to know why I earn the big bucks on the Oscar predictions and others don’t? Let me explain you some of my self made premisses & rules for the whole entire AWARDS competition.
–
1. be first
2. be smarter, or – (rom.„SCHMECKERIA“)
3. to Cheat, or –(rom. „MARE SCHMECKERIA“)
–
I don’t cheat & I am not the smarter boy. I am not a“mare Schmecker“ too, so let’s exclude these two numbers 2-3 and suddendly – no surprise – remains only No.1 – „to be first“ as a final decission, which makes a hughe advantage of catching higher early OSCAR quotes odds, against all gambling odds.
As Always- „Cara Pretina mia“ At Your OSCAR PREDICTION Assistance
Naroc Bun with all your„early“ Oscar selections -SANETATE, SANETATE
No, I understand, of course. 🙂 The bets are fine without Spotlight, as value bets – I just don’t necessarily think they’ll work out in this specific case, which is why I (not saying you should do the same), if I was the one betting, would include it, even diminishing the profits. I’ve made many bets like this, on competition winner (in many sports), excluding only those bets which I had good, statistical reasons to do so (regardless of how big a favorite they are), and have won most of them (one exception being this year’s Snooker World Championship, won by Stuart Bingham, an outcome which I was not able to take into consideration seriously, and most nobody else did either), with good profits every time. I think Spotlight isn’t one of those outcomes you can exclude, so I would keep it. But I could, of course, easily be wrong about that, and, besides, I understand perfectly that you’re not interested in the more inclusive style of betting I use on this type of bet, but just want to “catch” the best odds early on, on things that could very well win. I understood you the first time. 🙂 I know the principle, and I agree with it. It’s just not my thing, that’s what I’m saying… I would never bet against what I think is a very likely winner, regardless of how good the odds are on everything else that could plausibly win, because I trust my intuition too much to do that. I guess I’m arrogant in that sense, but it’s served me well in the past… 🙂
Cheers!
Buna seara! Sunt bucuroase că aţi venit Wellcome back on the Oscar”Gurus” stage :)))
Stay tuned, I’ll be just shortly back with some important “OSCAR BETTING NEWS”.
Did I wake up your interest, ……so stay patiently tuned and have a little rest.
Cheers !
OK…
And the OSCAR goes to “Claudiu Cristian Dobre” for “Best Picture Predicter in 2015-2016.
:)) Multumesc, foarte bine! Like you said before never bet against your Oscar predictions opinion, if it doesn’t come true it double hurts even more, for what ? At the end it should be the fun factor (Master Mind Brain challenge) because you love Cinema and of course don’t forget you could easily make a profitable fortune out of it (i.e. I always reflect in saying – onlyfor Hollyday Expenses but you could easily have a thinkover – why not -try going for a new appartment of your own or going for brand new car all that makes real sense to combine your no.1) passion AWARD OSCAR PREDICTIONS -and no.2,) your mathematical skills, all together & please don’t forget besides all that, you’ll always have big fun with it. Short talking about next Snooker World Championship, I would rather be very much interested in your predictions and personal selections, therefore just let me know on which Snooker Online sites are you posting them? Mostly I’am interested to combine your tips with my current OSCAR bets in doubles- or trebles- so why not? Let’s do it :)) it could be easily increase my chances to extend my hollyday trips might be to LOS ANGELES. Oh, by the way, having said though, I wanted to tell you a little secret, how you get informations about HFPA – Golden Globes -(90 press persons only!) current opinion thinkings of Best Picture. Result: It’s a very easy to follow them either on print or on their Online social media posts. :)) Anyway looking forward to your stats would be even be the best. Have fun, Cheers!
No Oscars awarded yet for 2016!… 🙂
The Snooker World Championship is in April (every year), so it’s way too early to form an opinion right now. It’d be like betting on the 2016 Oscars in June 2015, or something like that, because the 2015/2016 snooker season has just started. You can make some educated guesses (Bingham not defending his title is pretty much a given – far better players haven’t managed it before, after winning their first title -, but he’ll have big odds anyway, so you won’t gain much by ruling him out, and there are a few very good players I would bet won’t win it, even at this stage of the season), but you can’t know who will be in good shape and who won’t, come April, which is key. Plus, you can’t rule out the China Open winner yet (which is one of the strongest stats out there), since that one is played just before the World Championship. So, in snooker’s case, it’s definitely best to wait until later – ask me again in March, or thereabouts! 🙂 I’ll be happy to give you my predictions then!
I considered trying for bigger profits from the Oscar season, but I figured, precursors notwithstanding, it’s just once a year, and it would take too long to significantly increase one’s bankroll on Oscar bets alone. Unless you hit upon some really big odds early on, like you do. But you’d still have to bet some significant amount, and, like I told you, that’s not my thing – I’m not the type of person who takes chances on things like that. I like my income to be constant and safe… Most people do, I imagine. I don’t like stressing out over the financial side of things, because I have other activities in life that require a clear head and peace of mind, and which are far more important to me than making extra money and acquiring wealth (it helps that I don’t have a family to support, obviously). Which is why I don’t bet professionally, but only as a hobby. I take it seriously and all (because I always take everything seriously, sometimes too seriously), but I certainly don’t lose any sleep over it…
Oscar Race – “REACH FOR THE STARS !……:)) Think big & Go big!
Your approach in guessing next BP Oscar winners is fully acceptable, therefore you receive my full compliments, It looks like, at least for me, that you know very well how to handle the economic situation in your home country Romania. – So you must be a strong “Girl?….”:)
For every little information about the Oscars (Best Picture Race), Darts
-your spciallity for december and january or Snooker I am most thankful and grateful. Can’t wait for this scenario- Cheers -:))
:)) Sorry to disappoint you – no, I’m not a girl… The name (Claudiu) should have, perhaps, given that away – unless you were kidding. 🙂 The pic is of one of my favorite characters from one of my favorite TV shows.
Darts I don’t really follow. (Unless I happen to catch it on Eurosport, by accident, but that rarely happens.) Football, snooker, chess – mostly those 3. And the Oscars, of course…
Cheers!
For the Oscar race, that’s fine, as I was only guessing who stands behind the photo and name -(therefore I asked (Girl?), ha ha …anyway for the next 12 days we’ll not have very important datas or news to follow up, as the the next important info will be the decission of HFPA – categories clarification & determination of “JOY”. Oh, I forgot to say have a look on ODDSCHECKER.com, you’ll see that in the Directors race, the odds of Sir Ridley Scott -“The Martian” have got dramaticly hit, as UK bookies have shortend their odds one by one. Sanetate Naroc bun with your coming selections – Cheers !
The precursors are what matters – before that, it’s mostly speculation, without much concrete basis (some, but not much). And I agree that the Golden Globes are important, but to me the SAG Ensemble nominations are the more important of the upcoming announcements, as they reduce the field of potential BP winners even more (and based on a much stronger stat) – not even to just 5, as you can sometimes also rule out stuff like August: Osage County, that gets that key nomination, but obviously still can’t win BP.
Noroc!
I fully agree, thanks a lot but I knew it too, 09.december 2015 announcement of SAG’s, you know what it – I guess – for the ensemble “Spotlight” is a 99 % certainty – or a shoe in ! Have you already checked oddschecker? Be careful with Best Supporting Oscars, as I have an info that the little boy Jacob Tremblay can’t win it, therefore I excluded him straight away. more to follow …sanetate,sanetate, I think from Florin Salam, am I right :):) naroc ..:))
I don’t listen to Florin Salam, so I wouldn’t know… 🙂
I only checked oddschecker for the Best Picture odds. I don’t really care about the other races until later, to be honest. It’s too early, I haven’t seen anywhere near enough of the contenders yet (many of which aren’t even out), there are no certainties, no stats, and it’s hard for me to get interested in anything other than Best Picture (for which there are some more controversial, less concrete stats to go on already, at least). Thanks for the tip about Jacob Tremblay, though! I’ll keep it in mind…
Sanatate!
OK- following movies I have seen together with a Director of the Academy together:
“Steve Jobs” – “The Martian” – “CAROL”- Macbeth” – “Spectre” – “Black Mass” – “Sicario” -// all in full length. Result: The Martian -top BP & BD contender . Flops are BlackMass-Sicario-Spotlight-Steve Jobs. Perhaps Carol in Best Actress Race. That’s it. Naroc:))
OK.
Tom O’Neil: “I was less convinced that this was possible just a few days ago, but over the last five or six days, while talking with Academy members I am hearing strong Spotlight votes in the field now; that tells me it really can happen,” etc., and Chris Beachum: “I’m also hearing a lot of Spotlight buzz among voters and I could see it winning,” etc. (from the latest video podcast – “slugfest”, as they call it – with the editors at Gold Derby) – kind of goes against the whole “flop” theory… But maybe they don’t know what they’re talking about…
Be cautioned ! All internet sites who are dealing with awards predictions have to make a living by ads of production companies and distributers. If i am in their shoes I would do excactly the same. I am pretty sure, what I’am talking about – “Spotlight” replaces “Boyhood’s” position form last year, where most of the pundits & Gurus had it wrong proclaiming Boyhood as their big BP frontrunner. Don’t you know?:) From my point of view all these sorts of “Boyhood’s and “Spotlight’s” will not find a way in my “Best of Collection”.
They also had 12 Years a Slave, Argo, The Artist and so on as the frontrunner at this time in each of those years. So they get it right more often than not. What if Spotlight replaces the position of one of those instead? What proof have we that it’s not that, instead of the Boyhood/Social Network slot? Just your connections and opinions of what the pundits’ marketing strategies are? I can’t verify the validity of any of that, so I can’t treat it as anything more than rumors and speculation, no matter who I hear it from. Thanks for the tips, but I won’t be basing my predictions/bets on stuff like that anyway – I never do. I’ll go 100% the way of what the stats that are available at any given point tell me, as I always have. I’ve never encountered a situation in which I’ve felt the need to take into account buzz and word of mouth as well, and I’ve never gotten a BP prediction wrong on account of having ignored those, so I’ll keep ignoring them (mostly) until proven wrong.
Anyway, that’s enough about that, for me – this discussion is pure speculation from beginning to end, and I understand if you like that sort of thing, and debating endlessly about which prognosticators are being facetious and which aren’t, and who knows more voters and is or is not telling the truth about what they’re getting out of them, and the like, but I don’t, because such a discussion really does lead nowhere, in my opinion. None of these things are palpable and unequivocal, and I don’t trust them. So I’m just going to respectfully withdraw from this argument, for now, and wait for the precursors, at which point we can talk precursor relevance for as long as you like. THAT I’m down for!… 🙂
Yes, you’are right, don’t forget that Tom O’Neil had Angelina Jolie’s “UNBROKEN” at his No.1 over days, weeks too. Anyway, having checked my past records almost all of my predictions brought me very nice holidays – Chapeau – !
Multumesc, foarte bine! Like you said before never bet against your Oscar predictions opinion, if it doesn’t come true it double hurts even more, for what ? At the end it should be the fun factor (Master Mind Brain challenge) because you love Cinema and of course don’t forget you could easily make a profitable fortune out of it (i.e. I always reflect in saying – only for “Hollyday Expenses”) but you could easily have a thinkover – why not try going for a “New Appartment of your own” or going for “Brand New Car” all that makes real sense to combine your no.1) passion of Cinema – OSCAR PREDICTIONS -and no.2,) your mathematical skills – all together & please don’t forget besides all that you’ll always have fun in spending your time.
::)) Cheers !
Sasha’s first reactions in twitter about Screening of “THE REVENANT” are coming in:
“Can’t give a quick take on Revenant. Need time to process. Beautifully filmed.
Showcase for Leo. Violent.” by Sasha Stone – 28 mins ago
Leonardi DiCaprio “Hard to imagine anyone beating him.” by Sasha Stone – 29 mins ago
“”If Birdman was jazz I wanted this film to be more dreams and painting.” TheRevenant. by Sasha Stone – 25 mins ago
Clthink my bets with Leo as a certain “BANKER are looking good.
Let’s make plans for some real nice (LUX) holidays –
Yeah frate! – Mamaia I am coming !
Cheers !
Leo’s always sounded like a plausible bet to me too, with my limited knowledge/interest about the category at this stage… Anyway, we’ll see when more critics weigh in. It’s hardly set in stone at this point, just based on Sasha’s reaction – and probably won’t be even then. But I do hope this one works out for you! 🙂
Thank you very much for “YOUR BEST WISHES”.
I just wanted to give some updates. Have a good time.
Good Luck : )
Avatar and Gravity lost because their biggest competition had gravitas and definitively a truth or moment in our culture – the Iraq War or American slavery. The Martian will suffer the same fate to Spotlight. If it doesn’t, I’m almost positive it still won’t win. It’s a quality commercial offering, but Academy voters won’t bite (and shouldn’t).
Not only that… they lost because they are actors’ nightmares and actors are more than 20% of the Academy. One film is mostly CGI. The other has only 2 actors.
The Martian is definitely not an actors nightmare. It has a huge cast even. Not that reliant on VFX as the other two.
LOL, no. Gravity wouldn’t have lost if there hadn’t been that ugly “It is time” campaign where everyone was screaming “if you don’t vote for 12YS you are racist”. At least all precursors and AMPAS acknowledged Cuaron’s superiority over his competition and he swept everything on his path. Even SJWs couldn’t muster energy to beat the “give McQueen historical win” drum cause Cuaron snub would have been beyond embarrassing. And boy did McQueen want that win. He met with UN Secretary, threw some shades on Cuaron’s achievement (something about filming for 3 weeks with 1 camera = or > spending 5 years on developing technology and then filming with it). Nothing helped. Serves him right. Cuaron is one of the most deserving winners ever and he didn’t have to beat the Mexican drum (unlike McQueen whose whole narrative was that he was black director who directed slavery movie). People saw an artist, not race or ethnicity (which are totally unrelated to art of directing). No wonder another Mexican, AGI, won a year alter. Again, everyone saw only the artist. Same goes for Ang Lee’s double whammy wins. Didn’t have to beat Asian drum either cause his work spoke for itself.
Avatar vs THL is unfortunate cause the best movie of that year, the one that holds up so much better than either (THL hit WalMart bargain bin less than 6 months since its win), Inglorious Bastards was shafted amid ex vs ex craze.
In your delusional worldview, the racist logic that you use doesn’t even work. 12YAS won the Toronto Audience Award without a campaign from a middlebrow crowd. It dominated the critics awards, but it won bc voters didn’t want to look racist. It’s funny that never stopped them from short changing Do the Right Thing, Malcolm X, The Color Purple and Selma. Maybe, just maybe, they liked it the most. But, of course, that is preposterous to you. You embarrass yourself.
No, you embarrass yourself. Your examples are all wrong. Spike Lee was way before Internet and Social Justice Warriors who pollute everything. Color Purple was directed by a white guy, also way before SJW pestilence. Selma was directed by SWJ Goddess of Checking All SJW Statement Boxes; Statement Hair. Statement Movie. Statement tweets. However, Paramount didn’t send out screeners. I’m sure AMPAS didn’t shed much tears after being forced to give it to 12YS. Silent backlash is still backlash. Oh and let not forget that Selma was just as mediocre as TIG and TOE but critics didn’t want to rain on WOC director’s parade. Except when it came to handing out critical awards, Selma/DuVerney/Oyellowo didn’t even get run-up award. Critics backed up Gyllenhaal and Nightcrawler.
12YS won because of media witchhunt against “racists” who dare to vote for something else and because that movie, without any sense of time passage (12 days a slave) and with the worst White Messiah casting and cameo ever, was directed by the black director. If you split critics in 2 groups and sent each on a desert island Survivor style, cut them off from the world and then show each group 12YS, but one group is told it was Daldry or other white director and another that it’s McQueen, I guarantee you that Daldry group wouldn’t rave this movie. Same with Selma. It’s political correctness that clouds judgment so importance is mistaken for artistic merit. In reality both movies are mediocre as hell. And, no, AMPAS didn’t like 12YS the most cause there’s nothing to like. You see it once and never again. You can only fall for importance gimmick and that’s all. There, I’m not afraid of you, SJW! I have my opinion and you won’t shut me up!
“Gravity wouldn’t have lost if there hadn’t been that ugly “It is time” campaign where everyone was screaming “if you don’t vote for 12YS you are racist”.”
It would have, and many extremely powerful stats (all based on stuff that came before the alleged guilt-voting, a theory in which I don’t believe anyway) prove it.
“And, no, AMPAS didn’t like 12YS the most cause there’s nothing to like. You see it once and never again. You can only fall for importance gimmick and that’s all. There, I’m not afraid of you, SJW! I have my opinion and you won’t shut me up!”
Good thing we have you to tell us what the Academy does and does not (or should not) like! You must be a billionaire by now, what with all the money you’ve been making from bets made based on all this inside knowledge nobody else seems to have…
AMPAS wanted to award Gravity but slavery movie got in the way. proof: split PGA and the fact that Gravity won more awards including Director. Cuaron was so superior as the director that he didn’t lose anything. McQueen wasn’t even runner-up, that’s how weak he was. Anyway, The Martian doesn’t have slavery roadblock and naught Catholic priests simply aren’t that. Nor are lesbians in the button-up 50s. Stars are lining up for a great populist movie to finally win.
Wrong! Proof: No WGA or Oscar screenplay nominations for Gravity (no movie had won without either for almost 30 years), which is obviously the strongest bit of evidence, and Gravity losing BAFTA, the Golden Globes and BFCA Best Picture awards to 12 Years a Slave. If they liked it so much for Best Picture, it would have had at least one of the aforementioned screenplay nominations (ALL others they’ve liked enough to give BP to over the last 30 years did – including Titanic, which was WGA-nominated) and it would have won at least ONE of those 3 big precursors. The only thing it won was directors’ awards (DGA included), which proves they only liked the directing (and technical – hence the many below the line Oscars) aspects of it, but preferred 12 Years a Slave overall (which is what the Best Picture category is there for). For whatever reasons… There is ZERO proof that anybody guilt-voted, yet tons of proof that 12 Years was the universal choice for Best Picture, and not just with the Oscars. Plus, see Ryan’s post! Nobody in the Academy gives a shit about what the public thinks (so many of their choices prove it), and nobody in the Academy suffers any consequences for their Oscar voting choices.
I’m not even going to get into what the lack of a SAG Ensemble nomination tells us (this, regardless of eligibility), given the number actors that vote on the Oscars. But we can, if you’re going to insist on clarifications. I’m just tired of having THAT discussion again as well…
(I guess every year from now on somebody will force me to repeat all of these arguments… Check your stats, people!)
I mean the only thing it won AHEAD of 12 Years a Slave – of course it co-won the PGA, but so did 12 Years a Slave, which clearly says nothing about guilt-voting (you can ASSUME it says something, but there’s no proof there to support that assumption, while ALL of the other precursors, in fact, tell the exact opposite story).
“There is ZERO proof that anybody guilt-voted, yet tons of proof that 12 Years was the universal choice for Best Picture”
Tons of proof that Cuaron was universal choice for Director and there was absolutely no photo finish with McQueen. None. Cuaron won everything. 12YS didn’t win Ensemble and it shared the win with Gravity. There. McQueen didn’t deserve to make history. he shared producer credit but that’s not the same as winning Director. It’s like Pitt shared credit and is technically Oscar winner and nobody knows. There.
I never said anything about McQueen. My comment was 100% about Best Picture (the Best Director discussion I only included for its direct connection to said subject, particularly that year), in reply to your “Gravity wouldn’t have lost if there hadn’t been that ugly “It is time” campaign, etc.”
Guess I should have replied to that one, for clarity…
I don’t like this new system (Disqus) – it’s OK, I get by, but I’m definitely not a fan. Much harder to keep track of every new comment, unless it’s a reply to one of mine, specifically (in which case I, of course, get email notification), for instance.
“It is time campaign” was ugly as was “if you don’t vote = racist” craze. Anyone who was hanging out on this site should have good memory of it.
And, yes, there were reports of blind voting, voters who wouldn’t watch but voted out of obligation. But anyway, it sucks that politics trumped artistic merit but karma’s a bitch and hopefully it will hit McQueen and everyone associated with that movie. They wanted undeserved win now it’s payback time. may he never get back into Oscar race again and may another director make history that he craves so much. IMO, it should be an American director not some obnoxious Brit living in Holland. yeah, that would make him implode like that Sloth guy in Se7en.
I remember there was TALK of it… rumours… but I remember, at most, one article actually quoting somebody in the Academy saying they voted for 12 Years a Slave without seeing it. If you can provide at least 2-3 links of articles that prove there was more than one such example, I’ll maybe concede there’s some proof of it. Otherwise, it’s 99% hearsay, based on maybe one genuine example, which is simply not enough to conclude this is even particularly likely to have, indeed, happened “en masse” – let alone a near-certainty, as some are claiming…
I don’t know the rules on this site for linking articles and have no time to check. you may be right that it was one-two voters and same story reported on several sites creating illusion of bigger numbers. But that’s what Internet does. Creates illusion of bigger numbers where there are only few (case in point, Fassbender’s fandom is minuscule compared to his Internet hype hence why he bombs movies he headlines).
Yeah, that’s how I believe it was. I was very interested in any extra clues I could get at that point, because it was such a close race for Best Picture (compared to most years), so in this particular case I tend to think my memory isn’t playing tricks on me… Which doesn’t 100% mean there WASN’T “en masse” guilt voting – just that there’s (as far as I know) no real proof of it, nor any particular reason to think there was. But it’s still possible, of course, even though I (and others) don’t believe in it. We can’t know for sure what goes on in the majority of voters’ heads…
I remember Lodge (he’s the British one or was it Ellwood) claiming that BAFTA was sweep voting for 12YS and that it was going to win everything. I think that McQueen and Lupita bought into it cause his face when Cuaron won was pure cold rage and she was shooting daggers when Poulter won Newcomer of the Year (he repeated the same at MTV awards, beating Lupita who went home empty handed again). so I think that we agree that it’s always 1-2 people say something and sensationalist press spin it as everyone or majority or whatever. it’s like the saying that AMPAS won’t award so and so cause he/she will be nominated again. so all 6000 of them have a meeting and there they decide who to vote for and who to snub? LOL.
I remember that too. 🙂 I’d guess it was Ellwood, but I don’t really remember, so definitely don’t take my word for it… Anyway, yeah, I definitely agree that you should pretty much never buy into “word of mouth” stuff like that. (Like I didn’t, for example, with the whole American Sniper for BP thing last year, or Avatar in 2009, and so on.) I know I almost never do – I only really pay attention to stats and other historically strong tendencies. The “buzz” part of the race is interesting, and can be helpful, mostly in the early stages, like where we’re at right now, but I’m not really into that, which is also why I get far more involved in the whole debate once some significant precursor results are announced, and the stats start to come into play. I prefer having hard, unquestionable data (that I then interpret in my own, consistent – I like to think – way, which is the personal input on my part) to support my predictions.
Oh don’t get me started about “Cooper will pull a last minute upset, everyone in Hollywood is voting for him” fiasco, lol. there was NO evidence for that, eddie had it in the bag and yet many claimed with utter conviction that the name would be Cooper’s cause… third nom’s a charm? LMAO!
Yeah, exactly – that was definitely one of the more annoying ones…
that was hilarious. I mean, they actually believed it. And not for some insane love for Cooper but because they wanted to stop Redcarpet win. Agedna clouds judgement. I hate Fassbender with passion and think he’s terrible as Steve Jobs but I know that he could win because of that “OMG the amount of text he had to memorize!” gimmick. On top of having one of two most cliché Oscar winning roles – real life genius (the other is illness/disability).
No idea about Fassbender, because I haven’t seen Steve Jobs yet. I do, however, expect to like the movie, given what I’ve read about it and who’s involved. But, before I at least see it, I can’t really speak to the man’s chances of being nominated and/or winning… Especially since I don’t watch trailers, because I don’t want the look/feel of the movie spoiled for me. As for the bad box office thing, if I had to make a guess, I’d say it won’t matter (at least not very much). But that’s not my specialty, so I don’t really know…
probably won’t matter but should. It isn’t a great movie. When a movie is legit great with potential classic status than it shouldn’t matter. but this thing was commercial and it flopped cause no amount of aggressive marketing could make people care for the subject and buy Fassbender as SJ. It really wouldn’t be a loss for cinema if they all got snubbed. And reviews are OK but nothing out of ordinary. There are much better reviewed movies. yeah.
American journalism didn’t exactly expose the Catholic Church all by itself. It was thousands of brave individuals who risked ostracism and humiliation to put their lives on the line. Although their cause was greatly aided when the press finally got involved. Very important, but I’m not seeing how that past good deed is more “important” than presenting the most diverse cast in history making a case for the joyous glory of science. Especially when there is a richly funded cabal of anti-science political dark forces determined to turn America into an intellectual backwater. It opposes science (since it fears the truth) and does everything it can to make higher education unreachable for ordinary people. One movie celebrates the past. One movie presents the potential of the future. Personally, I pick box 2. It’s more encouraging.
BEST DIRECTOR – SIR RIDLEY SCOTT for THE MARTIAN …well, that’s from my point of view!
It seems to me that most of us have forgotten that in the 2000/2001 STEVEN SODERBERG was double nominated for:
1. ERIN BROCHOVICH –
2. TRAFFIC – for which he won the award, was the third person to receive double directing nominations in the same year.
Im still not picking Martian unless its 10 spots. I think its like Interstellar, last year was in everybody’s top3 too. Hope im wrong. And i think Bridge of Spies and Inside Out are in right now, safely.
Picture:
1. “Spotlight”
2. “Room”
3. “Brooklyn”
4. “Joy”
5. “The Revenant”
6. “Bridge of Spies”
7. “Inside Out”
8. “Carol”
9. “Steve Jobs”
10. “The Martian”
—-
11. “Son of Saul”
12. “The Danish Girl”
13. “The “Hateful Eight”
14. “The Big Short”
15. “Mad Max: Fury Road”
Director:
1. Tom McCarthy – “Spotlight”
2. David O. Russell – “Joy”
3. Alejandro G. Innaritu – “The Revenant”
4. Steven Spielberg – “Bridge of Spies”
5. Lenny Abrahamson – “Room”
—
6. Ridley Scott – “The Martian”
7. Todd Haynes – “Carol”
8. Danny Boyle – “Steve Jobs”
9. Quentin Tarantino – “The Hate
I don’t think the Interstellar comparison is fair : The Martian is considered a big success through and through while Interstellar – that cost considerably more and made less, in the US at least, and also received somewhat mixed reviews compared to the universal acclaim the immensely likeable (and considerably less challenging) The Martian got – was widely considered a disappointment. A remarkably respectable one (good BO, good reviews, 5 below-the-line nods), but thanks to the sky-high (=impossible) expectations, still : a disappointment. Not to mention though it is high time to reward Nolan with his first (!) BD nomination in the near future, his due status doesn’t compare to Ridley Scott who after a career that resulted iconic masterpieces in the last five decades (Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, The Martian), should really win his first Oscar now sooner rather than later.
All of this plus perception. Interstellar was hyped like crazy and huge things were expected from it, awards and boxoffice wise. In the end, it got RT in Age of Ultron range (70ish) and boxoffice was far cry from Gravity. OTOH, The Martian was expected only to be a decent sized hit since lost in space movies did well a year and 2 years before. Nobody expected an awards player…until reviews came in. And red hot boxoffice is now fueling serious awards talk. In short, Interstellar was perceived as an underperformer since it didn’t live up to (impossible) expectations while The Martian is absolute overperformer cause it exceeded expectations. I think it’s good for The Revenant that Internet community is pinning insane expectations on Joy now (many have it as the winner BP and BD even though it isn’t officially seen yet and what was seen of got mixed response thanks to different cuts that were screened and presumably focus group tested). The hype dropped to reasonable levels.
Interstellar suffered from an ill advised attempt to present it as hard science fiction, when at it’s core it really was a metaphysical musing on the nature of love. And I enjoyed it, but I’m a Christian and am intimately comfortable with metaphysical musings about love. Not so for people who walked in expecting a hard science space adventure. Some felt there was a bait and switch happening (I don’t think this came so much from Nolan himself as from the promotion). While The Martian is one of – if not the – greatest hard science fiction novels ever written. The movie is a very faithful, quite glorious adaptation. And the promotion has worn that on its sleeve like a NASA mission patch. So comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. I liked Interstellar, I love The Martian.
Ridley Scott is what, 78? If not now, when?
For what it’s worth, IMO Interstellar > The Martian. Nolan’s movie imagined the sublimity of space and science in startling big-cinema ways. Flawed, but grand. The Martian was great fun, I liked it a lot, and I don’t have much more to say about it than that.
Interstellar and The Martian couldn’t be farther apart!
Interstellar entered the race with high expectations for awards and until it was seen and literally shoved out the door by some low metacritic scores by a few critics, pundits were calling it for a nom. But then they dropped it and the film’s BP chances sunk. But it still got 5 nominations in the below-the-lines because it was a challenging, gorgeously rendered production.
The Martian had NO expectations for the race, but then came out and people liked it because it’s palatable, unchallenging, risk-less filmmaking and it’s an easy script to digest. It makes you feel good. So now they’re all calling it in the race, despite the fact that it will not have the below-the-line support to sustain it throughout the next few months. It is not a lavish productions. It’s a simple, traditional and lifeless production.
The two films couldn’t be more different.
Interstellar also stole unashamedly from Kubrick’s 2001. You can’t call the faster-than-light sequence a homage – it was almost a cut and paste from Kubrick’s film. I admire Nolan immensely and can’t understand his artistic choices here. He is better than that.
P.S. For the first and last time, I would like to give a shout-out to the directors who though delivered great and memorable work this year, are all bound to be overlooked big time :
ALEX GARLAND (Ex Machina) – One of the most fascinating sci-fi films of recent years.
ALFONSO GOMEZ-REJON (Me and Earl and the Dying Girl) – One of the most inventive teen films I’ve ever seen.
ANDREW HAIGH (45 Years) – Stellar character study featuring quietly tour-de-force performances.
RAMIN BAHRANI (99 Homes) – The opposite of escapist fare, probably hit close to home for more than 99.
JUSTIN KURZEL (Macbeth) – Pulling off a revisionist take on a classic is no small feat.
THOMAS VINTERBERG (Far From the Madding Crowd) – Ditto.
JAMES KENT (Testament of Youth) – Such a wonderfully crafted, acted, adapted, directed little gem. In a better world, it would have had atonement-esque success.
Far from the Madding Crowd is the biggest disappointment for me.
I truly believe that if it was entered into last year’s race during the Fall that Mulligan would have been Moore’s closest competition for the win, and it would have competed hard in some of the below-the-lines. It’s a truly great film, with fantastic supporting performances by the men, too.
It would be doing really great in this year’s race, too, if it hadn’t been dumped in May with no fanfare and with no confidence in its awards prospects. Mulligan could even be the frontrunner this year if the release dates for Suffragette and Madding had been swapped.
In complete agreement re Garland, Haigh, Bahrani, Kurzel & Kent!
by the way, Gladiator was the clear best of that 2000’s quintet, the one that actually challenged its audience… Chocolat was pure sugar, Erin Brockovich was a greatly shot and acted TV film, Traffic juggled in an unconvincing way and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was “Taoism for dummies”. Gladiator DID really stand out from the rest, thanks to its subtext about mass manipulation and power control via show business. Still, 2000 was the year of “Requiem for a Dream”, “O Brother, where art thou?” and “American Psycho”, among other more deserving films for the big prize or the nom. I recall 2000 as the most disappointing line up, I can recall. I only liked “Gladiator” but was not enthusiast about it, at all.
Great deconstruction of Gladiator’s competition. Agreed.
I’d say that both Mad Max and George Miller are still top 5 in the race, in their categories. That’s subject to change, but people hasn’t certainly forgotten it, plus there’s not much backslash against it. Scott’s card, is that he never won Directing despite the Gladiator win. But I would hardly say that Scott is more due than Miller, for the win. Sequel and genre bias work against Miller, but we all know, sooner or later, that’ll change. Remember that in the last years, films like Toy Story 3, District 9 or Up defied the rules and got nom’d thanks to the expansion… and others like Pan’s Labyrinth, The Dark Knight, came pretty close to a Best Picture nom.
Might agree with you agree with you about Miller if he’d directed Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louis, & Black Hawk Down, as well as Mad Max.
The only 2 masterpieces Scott has directed were Alien and Blade Runner, and its main merits were 2 extraordinary screenplays by Dan O’Bannon and David Webb Peoples. The rest of his filmography is made up of some great films (but hardly masterpieces) like Thelma & Louise, Gladiator or American Gangster and some really, really bad stuff as Prometheus, G.I.Jane or Black Hawk Down which is one of the most racist and offensive films I’ve ever seen. In exchange, Miller’s work has been consistent and with the exception of Thunderdome, made Mad Max a franchise that deliver a new film better than the previous ones. Add to this, Happy Feet and Babe (both films, the first one only as producer and writer) or Lorenzo’s Oil or even the failed but memorable Witches of Eastwick. Scott is an artisan while Miller is an author, and while Scott is great with framing and atmosphere, the construction of a sequence belongs to Miller, who has an overall better quality as director, in my opinion. Miller has been more consistent in his career, Scott has too many ups and lows, and his true memorable films were early in his career.
I don’t doubt Hollywood will make Scott’s overall b.o. prevail, when considering between the two.
Well said. I do think Thelma & Louise is also a 5-star movie, though not really a masterpiece like Alien and Blade Runner.
The main thing that Miller has going for him vs. Scott is that while both directors haven’t won and are in their 70s, what Miller did with Fury Road is far and away more deserving than what Ridley did with The Martian. It’s just a more challenging shoot that has left other directors in absolute awe.
As much as I want BROOKLYN to do well (=BD nod), I must say I will be supremely pissed if the Academy ignores Todd Haynes in Best Director. The fact that a masterpiece such as CAROL apparently is barely considered for the actual win, is embarrassing enough, but if it fails to get past even the nomination stage, I’ll definitely have a problem this season. A big one.
Who says Carol isn’t being considered for the win? It looks like the strongest contender next to Spotlight and Joy!
Unfortunately I don’t see that. The fact that you think CAROL with its (so far) universal critical acclaim and stellar festival run is on the same level as the yet-unseen JOY, kind of proves my point. Until latter is screened for voters and critics to great results, CAROL should be considered to have the edge since it had already pulled all that off. Emphasis on “should”.
Can we wait and see if the masterpiece also connects with the audience? cause Oscars shouldn’t be only about critic darlings that people have no interest watching or simply don’t like. making an appealing movie isn’t walk in the park and appealing doesn’t automatically mean dumbed down. Since Oscars make a big show that’s broadcast to average households, people should have some clue who the nominees and winners are. And please don’t try the Transformers argument. Carol and the likes have bucket load of critics awards so it isn’t like they won’t get acknowledged.
Oh, don’t worry, I wasn’t going for the Transformers argument, I was going for the “just because a film isn’t a four-quadrant hit that connects with audiences, doesn’t mean it can’t be seriously considered to be the best film of the year” line. And I stand by that. If Carol made 2M at the US Box Office, would it be any less of a film in any aspect, from its bravura performances, pitch-perfect directing and first-rate production values ? No. So why should it be considered any less ? And please don’t start with the money-argument. “Money” is irrelevant when it comes to discussing the quality of a film…and since the Academy attempts to reward “best” (quality) and not “most popular” (BO), then as I said, in this context, “connecting with audiences” is almost completely irrelevant. Almost because we all know a huge flop can’t really go all the way but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve to every now and then, purely based on its quality.
It isn’t money argument but that awarding critics darlings defies the point of broadcasting such events. Not to mention that every year has terrifically reviewed movies that wider audience have seen and they are ignored because of populist stigma. Pundits simply don’t want to give them any exposure or thought and The Martian is perfect example of uphill battle. It has great reviews, it’s super popular and it has tough time convincing Oscar predictors professional and amateur alike that it’s a contender. Same goes for Fury Road and Inside Out (this one is locked for Best Animated but not Best Picture). Fantastically reviewed populist successes that are struggling in expanded field that was expanded for movies like them, not for 300+ critics darlings form festivals or middlebrow British biopics since they always get in. I’m not talking about money. Money’s a by product of “many people want to see”. I’m talking about wanting to see and recommendation after seeing. There are great movies that one cannot recommend because they didn’t enjoy them. You acknowledge it’s a good movie but just can’t say “go see it” or see it again yourself. if Oscars are always going to awards those than stop broadcasting. ratings are already plummeting because of it, not because of lack of diversity or whatever (Viola Davis’s historical Emmy had all time lowest ratings so that’s that).
Look as far as admitting the Academy has a very serious fucking problem recognising popular films that also happen to be great / cult-bound / acclaimed, count me in. There is a long list of films that clearly deserved more or at least serious consideration from them and that list among MANY others includes The Fault in Our Stars, Edge of Tomorrow, Guardians of the Galaxy, Days of Future Past, Into the Woods, Gone Girl, Frozen, Skyfall, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Bridesmaids, Deathly Hallows Part II, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, How to Train Your Dragon,The Town, Wall-E, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Gran Torino, Tropic Thunder, Enchanted, Hairspray, Casino Royale, Dreamgirls, King Kong, Walk the Line, The Incredibles, Road to Perdition, Shrek. But on the other side of the coin, more often than not, they have at least one very popular (100M+ in the US) film in their BP lineup, and since the expansion probably even more than one (except last year of course).
Having said all that, I don’t think we can see eye to eye on your “if it’s broadcast the kind of good films viewers had actually seen, should win” argument because at the end of the day, those kinds of films don’t need the Oscars to find an audience, they can usually rely on a combination of popular source material / massive studio backing and marketing push / a built-in audience / a big budget. Meanwhile the little films that could live or die at the mercy of awards season that actually has the power to make audiences everywhere aware of films they probably would never embrace embrace to that extent in the first place. And that – the promotion of smaller films – is one of the most crucial AND beneficial aspects of this whole nonsense we call awards season. Just look at the massive numbers “little films” could actually deliver once the Oscar-machine alerted people of their sheer existence : The Imitation Game, Philomena, Silver Linings Playbook, The Descendants, The King’s Speech, Black Swan, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno. Could they have made SO much money without the months-long Oscar buzz ? No. Could The Dark Knight make the exact same amount it did WITHOUT the Oscars ? You bet.
There is no reason why an extra $25m in the pocket of Philomena is any more valuable to the industry as a whole than an extra $25m in the pocket of The Martian, except to the producers of Philomena. Presumably we all love films and want to encourage people to see great films. The potential to expand the audience is infinitely larger with a movie like The Martian for the very reason that it’s a four quadrant film. Grandparents can take their grandkids (which, incidentally, has the potential to have a lifelong positive impact on the lives of those kids). There is no way I’m taking my grandkids to see Black Mass or Bridge of Spies or Revenant. No matter what prizes they get handed. Most of the movies you mention are seen just as well on TV. The Martian is spectacularly gorgeous in the theater, although unlike Gravity doesn’t need to rely on JUST visuals. It has a splendid and authentic emotional subtext as well.
Sorry but I disagree 100% that Oscars should award small movies so that they could find audience. Majority of those small movies are made exclusively for critics and winning awards with total disregard for mass appeal. So they knew what they were doing from the start. They are critic baits and Oscar baits (those 2 usually overlap cause critics tend to go easy on those movies), their sole existence is to get raves and pick up awards. If they ever wanted wider audience than they would have been more appealing. That’s that. The awards shouldn’t be about giving a boxoffice boost. It should be about recognizing the best and many times, as your list shows, the best comes from very big movies which were snubbed maybe even because of “they made billions already” argument.
And TDK deserved to win more than that overrated feel-good gimmick Slumdog Millionaire, one of the worst and most shameful wins ever. As it is, it wasn’t even nominated and that snub prompted expanded field for the purpose of giving movies like TDK a chance. That didn’t last long, did it? before you know it, AMPAS went back to nominating “little Oscar baits in need of boxoffice boost” such as mediocre twin due TIG and TOE.
So “awards shouldn’t be about giving a boxoffice boost” but they should factor in Box Office more prominently ? That theory won’t fly.
P.S. Agreed on Slumdog Millionaire.
That theory should fly when big boxoffice hits have better reviews than standard small drama/biopic/suffering/oh my fare that gets nominated over and over. GOTG >>>>>>>>> TIG&TOE. Reviews were stronger. yet mediocrity that are those Masterpiece Theater productions made it in. Not 1 but 2 of them for crying out loud. And don’t get me started on The Reader that didn’t even have fresh reviews but meh reviewed Holocaust movie >>>>>>> raved superhero one, right? Screw that line of thinking.
harry Potter series have 8 certified fresh movies. 8. For a whole decade, those blockbusters were delighting millions who cared for the characters and were showing that populist could also be high quality which critical response confirmed. And that’s very tough to achieve with 8 movies since Star Wars and Middle Earth showed that the long series can easily falter quality-wise beyond 3d movie. And yet, even though the very last HP movie was one of the year’s most raved, it didn’t get nominated in the expanded field as an appreciation for high quality during its 10 year tenure and all the money it made for the industry (enabling production of un-commercial Oscar baits for its studio…yes, critics darlings wouldn’t exist without big movies making money that studio can afford to lose on production of a critic darling that doesn’t appeal to masses). That snub still stings because millions care for HP while only cast and crew of small movies cares for those movies. Their underserved snub doesn’t make millions of people miserable.
well I liked Slumdog Millionaire (at least it’s not Masterpeice Theater fluff like The King’s Speech). Ditto Hurt Locker and Driving Miss Daisy.
TKS >>>>>>>>>>> Slumdog. At last actors could act unlike wooden Pinto and very uneven Patel. In fact, that movie falls flat on its face the moment kids (Slumdog and brother) grow up. First batch was awesome and then appeal just vanishes. Also, horrible message that girlfriend should be more important than brother. Screw that move.
never seen Miss daisy and have no desire to see THL ever again. it wasn’t bad by any means but so forgettable. Typical “all best stuff is in the trailer” movie.
I just think the best film should be awarded. It seems like you’re saying the same thing, but I can’t tell. If a small film is the best film of the year then that should absolutely be the one awarded. Do you agree?
I notice that you did clarify to say the “majority” rather than all small movies are baity, but I very much find your take on the smaller movies to be disagreeable. Not all of them are made simply to pick up awards and raves. Carol, for example, is a movie by a well-respected auteur. It is exactly what it is because it is the exact movie Haynes wanted to make in the style in which he wanted to make it. In the case of such films made by such directors, thank God they didn’t make concessions so that the movie would be more appealing to most audiences, otherwise the films wouldn’t have been half as great as they are. If the best of these smaller movies were any different, then they might not deserve accolades but receive them anyway, since they would appeal to more people. These less than brilliant films (such as Theory of Everything and Imitation Game) are the kinds that I feel you’re focusing on that are made with awards in mind, and on those I would agree.
In my experience, the filmmakers who are making smaller films with limited appeal aren’t doing so for the awards, but to actually make a work of art in their preferred style that they can be proud of, perhaps challenging audiences or pushing the medium forward, and eventually stand the test of time. I’m sure they’d all like for their vision to be untampered with and still be seen by as many people as possible. Making it more appealing just for the sake of greater popularity simply isn’t an option for many artists. And if the film turns out better for having less elements that appeal to the masses, then it should still be rewarded based on its merits.
I’m just saying that for years a small movie isn’t the best, not even close yet it keeps winning. And critics can be very wrong. When they have a hard-on on some film-makers or actor, they overpraise them even if that doesn’t make sense to vast majority of movie goers. hence why we are getting winners that don’t stand the test of time, don’t hold up on repeat viewing and simply don’t age well.
*Viola Davis’s historical Emmy had all time lowest ratings so that’s that*
That had more to do with the ceremony broadcasting against Sunday Night Football against NBC and Emmy ratings on FOX are typically lower compared to when it airs on ABC, CBS, and NBC.
BTW, 12 YAS won in 2014, and it was the most watched show since 2000. (Although I know that Gravity probably had more to do with the bump, don’t underestimate the power of the black viewership. Remember, the decline of black viewers this year — who do make a sizeable portion of typical viewership — can be traced to the Selma snub).
It had everything to do with Gravity just like record breaking and still unsurpassed Oscar telecast had everything to do with Titanic and then second best had everything to do with ROTK. So, yeah, credit blockbusters. I’m not underestimating the power of black viewership but they didn’t exactly flock to 12YS and Selma (while they flocked to Kevin Hart movie that opened against Selma, for example). Not to mention that big stars like Bullock, JLaw and Leo were nominated (the latter 2 had fair chance of winning, especially JLaw) and there was big hype about McConaissance. So 12YS has very little to do with the bump considering so many popular draws.
Well I’m obviously making a prediction that Joy is going to be great based off of David O. Russell’s obvious ability to make a great film, yes. I’m just saying, Carol looks to be one of the strongest contenders and idk if the bloggers are downplaying it or what but if they are doing that they could atleast put it in 2nd or 3rd! Its reviews are undeniable proof that it could topple the other nominees, but it will need the support also!
I won’t give up on Carol and TH getting in. Both will end up on tons of year end lists and critic’s awards pushing it into the conversation throughout the season.
“Gladiator was up against two art films that year, though it was universally beloved by the public and critics alike. With rave reviews, a bravura performance by Russell Crowe and a massive box office hit, looking back it seems impossible any film could have beaten Gladiator”
Not sure if I agree 100% with this assessment. The public loved Gladiator, of course, and the industry embraced it as the comeback of the long dormant swords and sandals epic. But although Gladiator got mostly positive critical reviews (76 RT and 64 MC), it was definitely not without its vocal detractors (among them Ebert, Dargis, and Turan). Loved Crowe’s performance as well, but I view his Oscar win partly as make-up trophy for his still career-best work as Jeff Wigand in The Insider the previous year.
Don’t forget that Crouching Tiger was a box office hit as well (128M domestic) in addition to being universally raved by the critics and the industry. In the end the anti foreign language bias for BP did it in, but 2000 was a legitimate BP menage a trois up until the final envelope was opened.
Gladiator was that year’s phenomenon and evoked nostalgia for Roman times big epics such as Spartacus and Oscar winner Ben Hur. It was deserving winner and elitists, who like to be the only people who saw so and so movie and then frown over unwashed masses who didn’t, can shovel it. Everyone remembers that winner and always will, because it’s rewatchable and people will come back to it again and again. But they’ll forget or already forgot about Hurt Locker, 12YS and such that have ZERO rewatch factor or appeal to sit through them at all. Yes, you can win the Oscar but people will remember few.
There has never been a Best Picture winner I’ve wanted to forget more—forget that it won the Oscar that is—(but unfortunately couldn’t) than the bloated unintentional hilarity of Gladiator. I have re-watched it like you said, but only to laugh, and I laugh more every time. It’s even funnier than the 50s faulty horror movies like “From Hell It Came” about murderous tree stumps and everything in Edward D. Wood Jr.’s filmography. So, I certainly can’t disagree with you about it being re-watchable, but it’s re-watchable for all the wrong reasons. Comparison to “Spartacus” and “Ben-Hur” is horrendously disrespectful to those two masterpieces. So, will I always remember the movie and its win? Yes, but why? The movie: I’ve already explained. The win: because an awkward display of self-important idiocy defeated one of the most riveting, original, and beautiful works of art ever displayed in film: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
The BP winner that I wish would be wiped off the history books is the god awful carcass that was Birdman, or (The Expected Pretense of a Stupid Second Title).
I thought it was pretty brave of the academy to give the BP award to ‘Birdman’, a film that lots of people simply wouldn’t get – or would get in the wrong way (e.g. that it was ‘about’ Michael Keaton, yada yada). It’s also fairly easy for the viewer to skim along on the surface of this film – the music, the style, etc – when there is so much else going on. In a year when the other nominated options were The Theory of Everything, The Imitation Game, Selma, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Whiplash, American Sniper, Boyhood (albeit each has qualities to admire) how could Birdman be anything else but BP? It was, on several fronts, the standout film of the year.
Birdman and Whiplash were two of my favourite movies last year, but the one I really wanted to win was The Grand Budapest Hotel – a marvellously enjoyable cinema experience.
I thought it was a cruel nihilistic joke against humanity. It is nothing more than the “it” crowd kicking someone when he’s down, laughing and making fun of them, and then receive a pat on the back for being brilliantly witty at ridicule. I have never had such a negative film experience as watching that movie. There is not one likable character on screen; for a film about acting, it doesn’t portray them beyond self absorbed pricks—creating a weird conflicting message to the “Superhero films are destroying creativity” message. The editing was laughable. The gimmick cinematography was jerky—nothing like what Chivo did in Gravity or Children of Men. The music was painful. The nonsensical ending (borrowed from Black Swan) was thrown on to give a “happy ending” (and made less sense than Black Swan). This film does nothing but alienate its audience in a cynical triumph of nihilism, and for that it is the stand out film of the year. (Can you tell I hated that film?)
‘This film does nothing but alienate its audience in a cynical triumph of nihilism’.
Clearly it didn’t.
May I clarify? “This film tries everything to alienate its audience in a cynical triumph of nihilism.”
‘May I clarify? “This film tries everything to alienate its audience in a cynical triumph of nihilism.”‘
Clearly it didn’t succeed in doing so 😉
What you just said is anecdotal evidence. Not how majority feels about that movie and win.
The Martian probably didn’t intend to be a major Oscar movie but it’s further evidence it’s better to get your movie out in October instead of the November/December glut. It’ll be in for nominations because of that move just as other entertaining films like Argo, Gravity and The Grand Budapest Hotel were in the past.
We all know Spotlight is going to win, right?
All these The Martian talk is just wishful thinking to me.
I love you Sasha. I really do. But, come on.
Stop trying to make fetch happen. Please.
I can’t believe I’m defending Sasha but there it is. Her reasoning is sound. It’s people who stubbornly reject what’s in front of them – that The Martian, Scott and Damon threw a monkey wrench in the race especially since it’s Fox movie that wasn’t supposed to be their big player over Dear St Joy and The Revenant – that are wrong. Same people also tend to stubbornly hold onto Steve Jobs and place it above The Martian even though the air is out of those tires (as Wells puts it) while The Martian is still going strong.
The Martian is a big player and, yes, Fox will have to reshuffle their priorities. They may get 3 movies in BP line-up but 3 directors? Tough call. Someone’s getting left out. And that could well be the one whose movie’s more seen as actor’s movie than extraordinary achievement in directing. Hint: not Scott.
As for Spotlight, yes it’s important but I have tough time imaging “the important movie of the year” narrative that pushed 12YS to reluctant win. For those who might draw a comparison between The Martian and Spotlight vs Gravity and 12YS race. Not you, just some might and I’ve seen signs of it.
We all most certainly don’t know Spotlight is going to win. Based on what? Critics and bloggers? I hate to break it to you but that isn’t what drives a Best Picture win. I don’t know if The Martian will win – it seems like it has the best chance right now but things could change. I’ll you this much – I think Brooklyn or Room have a better shot at a win than Spotlight at the moment.
Spotlight could be overtaken by unseen contenders such as Joy, but I think it is unquestionably the frontrunner atm. It’s making good money, is very acclaimed, audience-friendly, and it will make the Academy feel like they shined a light on an ‘important’ matter. The Martian is a light, breezy, extremely populist blockbuster; there is no precedent for something like that winning. Hell, Gravity had critics on it’s side, and much more buzz surrounding it’s technical ingenuity, and even that couldn’t pull out a win. Personally, I think Martian buzz will fizzle out within a month or two. And we all know Fox will not prioritize it over Joy and The Revenant, resulting in it being given a lackluster campaign.
Neither Spotlight nor The Martian are gutsy enough films for critics to name them top of the year. How will either build steam when other films start getting the headlines as small precursor awards are announced over the next month?