As we come out of Venice, Telluride, and Toronto it does not look like we have a “frontrunner” yet. I’ve had a couple of private conversations about the Best Picture race, because that is, to quote my old friend David Carr, where all of the heat is. Some years, we know right off the bat what is going to win. A movie hits all the right points out of the gate to satisfy the needs of the awards-voting community.
It is beginning to feel a little like Goldilocks and the Oscar Contenders. This one is too hot, this one is too cold…
Things have changed dramatically in the awards race in the 22 years I’ve been covering them year-round. In 2000, we had an abundance of movies to choose from, movies that played in theaters to audiences when box office still mattered. Gladiator won that year.
Over time, with the rise of the internet, and blogs like mine, with social media hitting around the same time as the rise of streaming platforms and great television, things began to shift. Now, here we are in 2022 and the one thing we’re missing — like the dead body found at the beginning of a whodunnit and the search for the prime suspect: the audience.
We don’t yet have audiences for the movies coming out of festivals. We also don’t have the need for audiences. We have built an industry that doesn’t really seem to care about them. These movies are made for such a small group of people — and even half of those have tuned them out. So who will watch these movies? Why does any of it matter?
$700 million for Top Gun tells us there are still people out there who want to see good movies if Hollywood is willing to make them. The question then becomes, why isn’t Hollywood willing to make them? And the answer that comes back is the strange disconnect between trying to please the loudest voices online and in media vs. trying to please audiences. These two things are living on two separate planets.
In the past, it wasn’t a problem. The market decided. Movies that made money proliferated. Movies that didn’t were canned. But now we have no market anymore because we have streaming platforms. Almost anything can be put on streaming. It doesn’t matter if people want to pay to see it or not.
Obviously a movie like Top Gun should easily be considered among the best films of 2022. As the years wear on and people look back they will be shocked to see the list of the movies that did get in. They won’t recognize them because they won’t have ever even heard of them.
We also know that there would have to be a significant number of Academy voters who were populist enough to put Top Gun at number one for it to even have a fighting chance of getting in. That isn’t likely to happen. The Academy has always bred for exclusivity. Now, of course, it’s bred for inclusivity. Either way you slice it, they consider their tastes to be “sophisticated.” Knowing this, the bloggers simply omit a movie like Top Gun, knowing that the sophisticates will turn their nose up at it.
If the Academy wanted to survive they would immediately invite a more populist group of members, meaning, people who might have more middlebrow tastes that would, at the very least, consider audiences. You know, the rabble Hollywood no longer thinks about or cares about except in terms of how they can convert them to their way of thinking? Yeah, them.
Pleasing audiences and pleasing the online voices that mostly micromanage all media are two very different things. Studios are starting to figure out that they can still release movies and make money by completely bypassing the bloggerati online. But Oscar movies can’t do that. They are completely at the mercy of the Film Twitter ethos. It’s a quandary. Or a quagmire. It’s one or the other.
Critics online, bloggers, and everyone else start picking movies apart from their trailers, acting like “cops” in a way to root out the bad things. They are a machine built to do just that, so in a sense there isn’t any way to survive it except to stop caring about it even a little bit. Leave him to their own gripes and complaints, move on. But the gatekeepers unfortunately spend time on Film Twitter, which means they must care what they think.
That means we start to hear grumblings and complaints about even the ever-shrinking list of available movies on offer. There are people who say things like “the screenplay was weak” or “the hair is not period-appropriate” — that’s all before we get to the perceived thought crimes about casting and thematic content that won’t erupt until later. Everyone is suddenly an expert.
This is like a species without an apex predator that destroys its own ecosystem and eventually extincts itself.
Artists have to be let out of their cage to try to tell authentic stories and they can’t do that if they’ve got a Planet of Cops breathing down their neck at every turn. Is it possible to get back to the business of just making good movies again without fear of Twitter? Maybe. Maybe not.
Either way, let’s look at the Best Picture slate and see where we are. The main question you have to ask is, “why would this movie win?” There is always a reason. It is never just because the film is good. There always has to be an adjunct supplemental reason that urges voters to push a movie to the top of their ranked-choice ballot.
Already seen:
Top Gun Maverick – By many people’s measure this would be considered the film of the year – $700 million and counting. Why would they vote for it? A better question, why wouldn’t they vote for it? Do they want to save their industry or not? Usually a Best Picture contender leads in some of the other categories like acting and directing or at least screenplay. Top Gun only really has techs and perhaps Best Picture.
Elvis – Strong contender for a Best Actor win, $150 mil. Why would they vote for it? Mainly because of Austin Butler’s incredible performance and perhaps nostalgia and love for Elvis.
Everything Everywhere All At Once – An inventive film that brought out the Zoomers. $65 mil. Why would they vote for it? It defines the industry in 2022 as the industry would like to be seen. Innovative, diverse, fresh.
Now onto the fest gets:
The Fabelmans – This Spielberg movie will take the number one spot now unless pundits go all in for Babylon sight unseen. Why would they vote for it? Because Spielberg is a legend and an icon. It will likely hit in all of the top categories and come in a formidable winner. In our current climate, however, it is difficult to get collective support for a white dude. It just is. But if anyone can do it, Spielberg can.
Empire of Light – This film is driven by its performances, most notably Olivia Colman in a nearly career-best role. Michael Ward is also great, along with the ensemble cast. It’s either a movie that sweeps you away, or it’s not a movie for you. To quote Woody Allen, this is a movie that has to enter through a different organ (other than your brain). Why would people vote for it? To save movies.
Women Talking – An ensemble of actresses talking about empowerment, rape, and freedom had everyone talking in Telluride. It is probably going to get a SAG ensemble nom, and it looks like Sarah Polley might have a shot at a Best Director slot. Why would they vote for it? If they were swept up in the lives of the women and to honor a female director whose moment has finally arrived.
The Banshees of Inisherin – A return to form for Martin McDonagh, which is Film Twitter code for, “Thank god he didn’t make another Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.” Safely back in his home country they can appreciate his writing and directing again. Why would they vote for it? Maybe for that reason. If they liked it enough, maybe. White guy, though, big problem still.
TÁR – Definitely a film that is going to do very well when the critics awards start rolling in. I will be shocked if Todd Field doesn’t pick up major awards out of the gate. Cate Blanchett’s performance is already one of the strongest of the year. Why would they vote for it? Because it’s a comeback for Field, maybe. And because of Blanchett.
Glass Onion – Should be a big crowd-pleaser and with a strong ensemble cast. Why would they vote for it? Well, it depends on how successful it is overall. Any crowd-pleaser is always a threat to win.
Coming up:
Babylon – We don’t know much about this movie, but sight unseen it looks fantastic. Why would they vote for it? Well maybe because La La Land didn’t win in 2016. Maybe because it’s about Hollywood. Maybe it will be too good to pass up.
Avatar: Way of Water – Jim Cameron is BACK. We have to wait and see. Why would they vote for it? Well, let’s see what it can do first. But remember, the first Avatar didn’t win Best Pic.
She Said – This is the one I’m really putting my early chips behind because it represents a moment of reckoning for the Academy to make-good on the Weinstein debacle. Female director too. All systems go.
Till – This will be a hard movie to watch, but as you can already see, we’re dreaming of a White Christmas here so far. So Till would add a more diverse slate to Best Pic.
The other ones, we’ll have to wait and see on. They do seem targeted more for performances and perhaps screenplay than Best Picture, but you never know.
The Woman King
I Wanna Dance with Somebody
Wakanda Forever
Amsterdam
The Son
Armageddon Time
Blonde
Bones & All
White Noise
The Whale
Decision to Leave
Triangle of Sadness
Frontpage “leaders”
BEST PICTURE
The Fabelmans – yes
Everything Everywhere All at Once – most likely
Empire of Light – iffy at best
Women Talking – yes
TAR – yes
Armageddon Time – longshot
Elvis – longshot
Top Gun: Maverick – longshot
Vengeance – er… really?
BEST ACTOR
Brendan Fraser, The Whale – yes
Austin Butler, Elvis – longshot
Tom Cruise, Top Gun: Maverick – ultra-mega-longshot
BEST ACTRESS
Michelle Yeoh, Everything Everywhere All at Once – yes, most likely
Michelle Williams, The Fabelmans – probably supporting, but yes
Olivia Colman, Empire of Light – maybe
Cate Blanchett, TAR – lock
Rooney Mara, Women Talking – maybe (too big of an ensemble)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Michael Ward, Empire of Light – probably not
Anthony Hopkins, Armageddon Time – nope
Jeremy Strong, Armageddon Time – nope
Tom Hanks, Elvis – maybe Razzie?
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Jessie Buckley, Women Talking – possible
Anne Hathaway, Armageddon Time – unlikely
Claire Foy, Women Talking – possible
At this point, if I was daring to bet money…
Picture
The Fabelmans (lock)
Women Talking (lock)
Tàr (almost lock)
Everything Everywhere All At Once (really, really likely)
outside of that… everything else is iffy at best: Babylon, Empire of Light, She Said, Top Gun: Maverick, Elvis, etc.
Director
Spielberg, The Fabelmans (lock)
Polley (likely)
Field (likely)
Daniels (possible)
I’d say 2-4 of them will be nominated. We’re looking for a 5th name and some possible spoilers for anyone but good ol’ Steve.
Actress
Blanchet (lock)
Yeoh (really likely)
Robbie (possible)
de Armas (iffy but really possible)
Mara (possible)
Williams (possible, but likely to be Supporting)
I’d say 1-3 of them will do it, and we still need 2-4 names to appear.
Actor
Fraser (lock)
Farrell (likely)
Gleeson (possible)
Pitt (supporting? possible)
Song Kang-Ho (longshot, depends on someone funding a campaign AFTER critic circles support)
Butler (longshot, it depends on almost everyone else disappointing and Elvis being somehow remembered)
I’d say, this is Fraser’s to lose.
Supporting Actress
Williams (lock, unless she’s promoted in Lead)
Buckley (Women Talking)
Chau (The Whale)
Sink (The Whale)
Goldberg (likely, but pending on the film to be screened)
Hsu (longshot)
Curtis (longshot)
still too open and with so many possibilities of cat. fraud
Supporting Actor
Quan (likely, possible winner)
Harrelson (possible)
Hirsch (possible, but too short of a performance)
Rogen (possible)
Dano (possible)
other than Quan, everything is extremely open yet.
Folks here seem stuck on this notion that you have to be a populist film to earn a Best Picture nomination.
OK. If that’s the standard, here’s your 10 Nominees for Best Picture this year so far:
UNCHARTED,
SONIC THE HEDGEHOG 2,
ELVIS,
LIGHTYEAR,
THOR 4,
MINIONS 5,
BATMAN 8
JURASSIC PARK 6,
DR. STRANGE 2 and
TOP GUN 2: MAVERICK.
Really great field, eh? Makes you think of 1972 or 1939, huh?
Finally saw Elvis. I was very mixed on it, which is what I expected. My thoughts aside, depending on the season, I could see it being on the in/out line ’til the end, i.e., somewhere between Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocketman, obviously gets help from Globes lane keeping it in consideration, as well as below-the-line guilds. Same with Actor. I could see it showing up for Actor for SAG since they tend to nominate some earlier players, but not sure of any other noms there. But, we shall see. Its box office won’t hurt at places like PGA either if it’s still in the discussion.
Also, I’m very excited for Fabelmans 🙂
If ELVIS, TOP GUN 2 and EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE are prime examples of the kinds of movies that will “save” Hollywood and the Oscars — oh, my.
Vulture has a hilarious article on which of the three movies (Armageddon Time, Empire of Light, The fablemans) is most like Roma. It’s utterly hilarious and also completely accurate.
Dang, I thought people had moved on from Roma.
Clearly directors haven’t, as they’re all trying to make their own.
FYC: Bros for Best Picture.
I wouldn’t rule it out actually. There is always room for a charming romantic comedy as long it has some “depth” to it. Considering how much of Hollywood is gay, it may just get those necessary #1 votes if this movie is done exceptionally well.
My current hunches as of 9/15. Liable to change completely any day now, LOL.
Top Gun: Maverick
Everything Everywhere All At Once
The Fabelmans
Babylon
Avatar: The Way of Water
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
Glass Onion
The Banshees of Inisherin
Women Talking
The Whale
TAR instead of Avatar or Wakanda or Glass Onion and yeah, that’s that.
No way Top Gun, Avatar, Glass Onion and Wakanda are all in.
TAR over Avatar? It’s not quite the dumpster fire Babylon looks to be, but still. Blanchett, yes. Glass Onion, yes; forget about that. TG:M seems like yet another Tom Cruise telling the world “look how macho I am”.
Off Topic… watching the first episode of HBO’s documentary “Salvar al Rey” (Saving the King, available at the USA)… about Juan Carlos I of Spain… an inmediate must-see, to re-evaluate plenty of assumptions.
Top Gun: Maverick just surpassed Black Panther to become the 5th highest grossing film at the unadjusted USA+Canada domestic box office, while also becoming the first film to rank #1 on both Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends.
I just made my 4th and final big-screen round of Top Gun: Maverick earlier this week. It truly continues to astonish.
Seriously, while the artsy festival horses jockey for Oscars contention based purely on the hype leading up to their premieres, actual released films RRR: Rise, Roar, Revolt + Top Gun: Maverick + Everything Everywhere All at Once further solidify into the Best Picture status of “MUST NOMINATE OR WE’RE REPREHENSIBLE SNOBS”. (I’d even include Nope, now my favorite Jordan Peele film, in that grouping.)
Just imagine the possible shift in the narrative if either Ram Charan and/or N. T. Rama Rao, Jr. make it into the Best Actor (Musical/Comedy) category, or S.S. Rajamouli into Best Director, at the Golden Globes for RRR. (And no, no one has to remind everyone else that the film will obviously be relegated to Best Foreign Language Film there.)
As for Best Original Song, I just want The Bob’s Burgers Movie’s “Lucky Ducks” + RRR’s “Dosti” + “Naatu Naatu” to make the final category. Please.
And regarding Top Gun: Maverick especially, allow me to set this stage:
— Logan received a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination at the 90th Oscars.
— Black Panther won Best Cast at the 25th SAG Awards.
— Ford v Ferrari won Best Film Editing and Best Sound Editing at the 92nd Oscars.
Now, how’s this for a hot take?: Top Gun: Maverick is better than all three of those films, ergo it should at the very least contend for all those awards as well
Has anyone here seen Moonfall, the latest Roland Emmerich debacle that was made for 150 million dollars? It’s easily the worst blockbuster ever made. It gives you 100% understanding on how Hollywood works.
In the past everyone had all the data. Now with streaming, data is kept hidden. No one knows how Power of the Dog or CODA or Nomadland would have made at the box office, or even how many people have seen it and loved it. All you get is anecdotal commentary from Sam Elliot.
Hollywood is losing its ability to identify a target audience. All they know is that comic book movies make a ton and horror movies are cheap and usually profitable.
I have no idea where we are heading. I just know that English Language TV is worse than Korean or Spanish Language TV.
“Moonfall” was a delicious trainwreck at some points. Loved the nuts idea, the completely “on crack” plot and the insanity overall… it’s Emmerich at his worst and best at the same time. I can never be too hard on the guy, he really knows how to orchestrate disaster (the L.A. destruction in “2012” has to be one of the very best sequences of the century, so far, in action/comedy/disaster genres nailing the exact point between the unspeakable horror that’s being portrayed and the sense of fun).
It’s probably going to end as a cult film…
I enjoyed the crap out of Moonfall so much that I saw it 2x on the big screen. Big smile, both times. =D
I saw it in theaters – Emmerich+Disaster means BIGGEST SCREEN POSSIBLE – and plan to rewatch it now that it is included on Prime Video…
It was so terrible I watched it until the end as well, and it only kept getting worse. I hated myself when it was done. Maybe still do.
you simply don’t get why Emmerich is so fun to watch. Because he wants to be terrible. Problem being, he applies his style to the wrong project (10,000 BC, Midway, Stonewall)… but when he goes for disaster… he’s the Cecil B. de Mille of the last decades…
10,000 BC, Midway and Stonewall were definitely my least favorite of his. But I like his popcorn trash in the right mood, including Moonfall (underrated in this regard). But 2012 is his epic I actually often turn it on in the background when I’m doing chores or relaxing and even bought the digital version. I still love Ebert gave it ***1/2, and I think his review nailed it for what it is (since his ratings didn’t mean best film of the year but relative to the type of film, i.e., if you want worldwide trashy film destruction, hard to beat).
“2012” is also his most satyrical – and spot on – film… basically an allegory of the collapse of capitalism that we’re now going through and that was forecasted by the MIT study in the early 70s… his ability to drop sulphuric acid in just one shot (for example, Queen Elizabeth II with her dogs heading up to the arks, while the workers that built them were going to be left to die… so the Queen’s dogs were more “essential” than the essential workers that would save part of humanity), has never been more clear (I just love how much fun he has in distorting sarcastically Silvio Berlusconi’s image in the Vatican scene)
The I Wanna Dance with Somebody trailer is terrible too. Can only hope that the movie offers something other that what we can already see (only much better) just by watching old Whitney clips on YouTube.
The original Top Gun was a huge cultural sensation; it was the #1 box office movie in America that year, grossing $350 million which is equivalent to about $950 million today.
Was it nominated for Best Picture? No, of course not. Screenplay? Directing? Acting? Nope, nope, and nope. It won Original Song and was nominated for a few techs.
Best Picture that year went to Platoon, a left wing political film that grossed $130 million, equivalent to $375 million today.
That’s the difference between then and now. It’s not that movies like Top Gun used to contend for Best Picture; they almost never did. It’s that audiences used to turn out for serious, mature movies like Platoon, even when they had a clear political slant, and now they don’t. That’s what’s changed, not the movies themselves.
Maybe it’s because of streaming, maybe it’s because Americans have gotten more sensitive and whiny about politics and encountering ideas that they disagree with, maybe it’s some combination of the two, but the movies aren’t any different. It’s hard for me to think of a film maker who is more on the nose and preachy with their “messages” than Oliver Stone, yet he was a big box office draw in the ’80s and early ’90s
So it doesn’t make much sense to say that in the Good Ol’ Days Top Gun would’ve been a major BP contender. The original wasn’t, and a lot of the same public that went nuts for Top Gun was also willing to watch and enjoy Platoon.
I think the big difference you are missing is Top Gun was released during normal box office times, while Top Gun Maverick grossed over 1B at a time when ppl weren’t going to the movies. Oscar ratings weren’t sinking at that time and they still had the public’s attention. Top Gun Maverick is loved by critics and audiences and could get the Oscars more viewers. A lot say it’s better than Top Gun. I disagree and prefer Top Gun to Top Gun Maverick, but I can’t deny the impact this movie had on what seemed to be the death of movie theaters.
There is absolutely no evidence that nominating popular movies increases the Oscar broadcasts’ ratings. They nominated Joker in 2019 and Black Panther in 2018. It didn’t affect ratings.
Your comment should be featured and moved to the top of the section.
TG back at the time, was purely considered entertainment/blockbuster and a piece of propaganda. It had zero chance of earning a Best Picture (or above the line) nomination… specially if you considered what kind of films were actually earning those nominations for the previous 20 years…
The only reason why TGM is now a player… we’re post-Trump and right wing reigns supreme worldwide… and we’re on the verge of WW3 thanks to the war in Ukraine and the Russian blackmail to the EU with the gas, for this winter.
Top Gun Maverick is just plain better. Maybe you have to be old enough to enjoy it. Maybe you had to have the memory of Top Gun recessed into your brain, like a long lost memory, a boyfriend forgotten that you suddenly run into and you wonder “what if?” It’s a marvelous thought-provoking film.
The fact this it’s exciting and fun and can bring in a wide audience is just bonus. But at it’s core, it’s a great film.
the fact that there’s an unnamed enemy – as I’ve heard- just plainfully makes me reject the film and makes me thing that – it doesn’t matter how technically good or impressive it may be – we will be just watching another piece of propaganda.
And sorry, i don’t pay to see advertisements.
The unnamed enemy is annoying, but there are three main reasons they aren’t mentioned.
1) Real world politics. With terrorism there, you don’t want to give anyone or any country something to fuel a response.
2) Box office – it can’t be China for obvious reasons.
3) Americans don’t like to delve into foreign policy. It’s better that the enemy here is pretty much “anyone and everyone” so we can feel like we are the best. In this country we are so slaughtered with the idea of “exceptionalism” that 99% of us pretty much accept it without thinking.
The original film was criticized properly for being a recruitment film for the US military. Not sure if that is fair. But when most films about war and the military were extremely critical of the US TG stood out. Recall that Platoon won Best Pic that year. TG was very much a “rah rah” cold war response. It was a rallying cry that the US is still awesome and worth joining the military for.
There really is none of that in this film. Sure there are pilots expressing joy and fulfillment and whatnot in this film and that old “band of brothers” feeling. But those aren’t lies. People who join the military often love the military, the friendships, the purpose, the feeling that they are important. I don’t see anything wrong with portraying that on film. I think in this film there is enough “counterpoint” to show that military life is not all it’s cracked up to be. Tom Cruise’s loneliness and estrangement from society and people in general is front and center, all from the death of his friend. Couldn’t be more accurate in my opinion.
“The original film was criticized properly for being a recruitment film for the US military. Not sure if that is fair.”
As always, rufus, you make a lot of great points, but the impression we all got that the original Top Gun served as a recruitment film was not just a theory or idle speculation.
The US Navy was proud to boast in 1986 that their generosity with military equipment and cooperation with Tony Scott had paid off:
That’s why I think it’s naïve to claim that Top Gun: Maverick — or any movie that cheerleads for military conflict — is devoid of any political agenda or subtext propaganda.
The Pentagon doesn’t let Hollywood play with real-life war machines unless the top brass sees a strategic messaging benefit.
Even in Top Gun: Maverick, twice in the script someone says, “If only we had the budget for 5th-generation fighters like our enemy does!”
That’s such fucking disingenuous bullshit, considering the laughable F-35 is a $1.7 trillion boondoggle that resulted in a 5th-gen fighter that is useless in combat and in many cases isn’t even able to fly.
Those two lines in Maverick serve no plot purpose whatsoever, except to let the Pentagon whine. “Wah wah, we blew $1.7 trillion on a plane that is too embarrassing to mention in this movie, but please believe our lie that we need a few more trillions to defeat our enemies.”
I am well aware of military help in movies and that the movie needs to pass “muster”. You live in the US so you see military recruitment everywhere, from sports games to movies far less spectacular than the Top Guns. And the directors/studios need to balance it out – do you get military assistance in exchange for a free commercial. Most will opt for the assistance.
Where I think it’s unfair to criticize Top Gun is the inclusion of camaraderie amongst the soldiers. Such things are real and the scenes of all the men bonding are fair to include in the film without it being seen as propaganda. Such a thing, that brotherhood, was new to us high school seniors in 1986. Our entire lives to that point movie-wise was Vietnam. Sure there was the occasional TAPS but even that was disconcerting and unsettling what with the dead attendee and all.
All I am saying is that if it were a recruitment film, it wasn’t successful in my neck of the woods. But that’s not to say we weren’t overwhelmed by its charms. We sang “You lost that loving feeling” at every party for quite awhile.
As for the people it did recruit, I have no stats to prove it, but I bet gay men were at the top of the list. Everyone talks about the volleyball match, but really, the first scene in the locker room was dangerously close to porn. Especially for that time. Check out the guy laying on the bench. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_IiRqTlRPI
Wasn’t the fact that Top Gun was the first major Hollywood film to become available on VHS at a reasonable price was what propelled its status from “gung-ho blockbuster” to “iconic and beloved, with charming flaws”?
Does that matter? If that shift happened later on, then Top Gun: Maverick, a somewhat gung-ho blockbuster, is more in line with Top Gun and not less. Because as pleasant as Top Gun: Maverick was, it is not iconic, no matter how many flaws you let it have without losing that quality
Give it time, give it time…
(on top of that massive pile of box office money it already has, which only Black Panther: Wakanda Forever and Avatar: The Way of Water can possibly match or surpass at this point)
Bingo.
This idea that the Academy all of a sudden got “elitist” is bunk.
The real problem is that AUDIENCES abandoned THE PLATOONS, ANNIE HALLS, KRAMER VS KRAMERS, OUT OF AFRICAS etc. that were A List pictures and made money.
Uhh, pretty sure “elitist” in this case means “leaning heavily towards only considering those new releases that premiered at curated film festivals most average people aren’t even aware of, after which they may or may not get a well-promoted wide release, beyond their Oscars-qualifying theatrical run in LA County (and a few others, as of these past few years)”.
I don’t live in LA, yet every BP nominee for the past few years has been either a streamer or shown at multiple theaters near me. The public could watch these movies if they wanted to.
Well yeah, typically to cash in on getting nominated, not like the old days in which most Best Picture nominees were approved by mass audiences immediately after the critics got first taste to guide their publications’ localities.
And, who’s to blame for that? Audiences, again.
No matter how great the reviews, they still go and see guys in spandex, cartoons and sequels, sequels, sequels.
That actually SUPPORTS my point. Back in the day, Oscar bait movies were A List affairs made by the major studios BECAUSE THEY MADE MONEY. The studios stopped making them because audiences wanted endless sequels, reboots and literal cartoons.
That’s why Academy voters have had to move more and more and more to indies to find awards worthy films.
That is, unless you are happy with Thor 4, Minions 5 and Fast & Furious 9 as Best Picture candidates.
Do any of those have the combination of critical acclaim and commercial legs Top Gun: Maverick has?
That’s ONE movie! Fine. In a field of 10, you got one that’s an old school studio film candidate. When the first Pop Gun came out you had PLATOON, COLOR OF MONEY, CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD, HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, THE MISSION, HEARTBREAK RIDGE, THE MORNING AFTER etc all on the ballot
That’s ONE movie! Fine. In a field of 10, you got one that’s an old school studio film candidate. When the first Pop Gun came out you had PLATOON, COLOR OF MONEY, CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD, HANNAH AND HER SISTERS, THE MISSION, HEARTBREAK RIDGE, THE MORNING AFTER etc all on the ballot
Critical acclaim + commercial legs? Everything Everywhere All At Once is a sleeper, A24’s biggest b.o. hit… of course, it’s made less than 10% of TGM’s returns but consider the budgets and b.o. expectations (realistic) of both films… I’d say that TGM overperformed both critically and b.o.-wise, however it was always intended to be a blockbuster. The edge is always in the sleeper hit nobody counted with… like District 9 (look for no better example than a South African film by and with unknowns, and also being a genre film as well).
The big differences between TGM and say, Mad Max: Fury Road, which would be the best comparison…
1) It never was a franchise. It’s a sequel that has the intention to build a franchise, over 30 years after the original… so, a pure exercise in nostalgia.
2) MMFR actually went on the franchise, also 30 years after, but with SOMETHING deep to say, beyond the spectacle of its insane action set pieces. It was a political and social satire at core, that hit directly with the industry as “art” rather than “entertainment”.
3) George Miller. Repeat with me… George Miller. Living legend. Who’s directing TGM?
4) TGM will have the money to campaign. It’s locked for some techs nominations and probably will win Sound in a heartbeat. Aside of that… Film Editing? VFX? Does it really stand a chance to win anything above the line? It’s an “alternate” for a Best Picture nomination at best. In contrast, the world building of MMFR swept the nominations (and tech wins) and was *this* close of scoring Director and Picture as well, probably.
5) For the action/genre film, EEAAO looks like an original proposal, in comparison, and extremely more heartfelt, artistic and poignant (AMPAS members don’t think of themselves as “industry” but as “artists”… they will always favor anything that at least looks “artistic” rather than just a product or a cashgrab). If someone is deciding between both… they all know which one is the pick that could actually stand the test of time better, as proven with the fact that Midnight Cowboy, A Clockwork Orange are Oscar nominees/winners, that were considered extremely risky choices.
So, I am not saying TGM won’t be nominated… but is anyone really thinking it would have a shot at winning anything big? Because with almost half a year still for Oscar night, to be a player, people needs to see you as a possible winner, not an extreme longshot. Specially since the budget for campaigning is started to be decided NOW… they have to really value who’s got a shot and actually who’s going to win the winning horse of each studio, on each category… to not divide and split efforts with players cancelling each other out (actually that’s the Netflix discussion at this moment, I’ve read somewhere)
The sad part is that it really looked like things were getting better in 2019. Lots of serious films did well at the box office that year. Then came 2020.
Completely on topic (and probably repeating myself, have the weird sensation I posted something similar here, sorry if I did)…
really, watch out for “Nope”. I have a hunch. It’s a film that earns A LOT when you double-think it. Plenty of analysis on how perfect and deep it is… how everything ties together, how suggests ideas and concepts… how sucessful it is, at creating iconic imaginery, the lovecraftian elements, it really can have a 2nd evaluation by critics and audiences, specially if rewatching it (and watching how all pieces fall into the right places). Do not discard it for (at least) Sound, VFX and even Original Screenplay. To enter some top 10 lists. At this point it already has the MC and RT score enough to not being a film to completely discard for anything (worse have been nominated and even won BP), but I can feel a re-evaluation on its reception and specially a lot of passion in the web, growing for it.
There are definitely things I agree with in this article such as it’s obvious filmmakers are being policed and that the Oscars need viewers again.
Then again not many went to see my favorite movie of this yr and last yr,
Spencer / Crimes of the Future.
Spencer was fantastic. Crimes of the Future… I need to have my “mood” to watch some body horror…
In an ideal world, Crimes of the Future and X would be contending for Best Makeup & Hairstyling Oscar noms.
Crimes of the Future is Cronenberg’s masterpiece imo. There’s so much to unpack in this movie, some great themes that me and a friend discussed for over an hour at dinner after. Great performances. As for the gore, that doesn’t bug me but the ppl in my theater shouted at the screen LOL
I just can’t understand how Cronenberg has never been nominated to BD.
Crimes of the future is a delight and right now it’s on my podium for 2022. But not expecting a single nomination
I would rather argue that I can’t see a single Cronenberg movie being in any way something that the Academy would consider for a directing nomination (except maybe Eastern Promises and A History of Violence as very distant possibilities)
Not for BP, obviously. But the director’s branch?
The same branch who gave Lynch Mulholland Drive’s only nomination? I could’ve seen every single Cronenberg film since Spider getting in BD with a good campaign, honestly. But I think that’s the main problem: Cronenberg’s own lack of interest in the Oscar race, judging from the love giver to Hurt’s and Mortensen’s noms. Not to mention Julianne Moore’s win at Cannes with Maps to the stars. Creating a buzz for the film and her being overdue for an Oscar should’ve been easy peasy,, but there was no effort from the team so Still Alice took profit from it.
And of course, both films you mentioned should’ve given him a nom. Crash (not Cronenberg’s, but the bad one) won the same year A history of violence was snubbed. That’s hard to swallow.
I feel like Lynch at least has this air of “highbrow visionary” through The Elephant Man and Blue Velvet that made something like Mulholland Dr. easier for to people to go with whereas even though Cronenberg isn’t any more or less that kind of an artist than Lynch, I feel like when people think of Cronenberg, the assiocations they get are different (more along the lines of body horror and provocation) and as a result they’re slightly less willing to go where Cronenberg is taking them
I see what you mean but I think that critics’ perception concerning Cronenberg has quite changed along the years. Since Dead ringers where all the body-horror is suggested and not shown, then with Crash (the good one) scandal at Cannes and mostly with the highly praised and respected A history of violence, which is a masterpiece and a reflexion on how violence can infect and parasite a role-model family. If the screenplay and specially Hurt was nominated for this one with such a little role, and Watts wasn’t for Mulholland, in spite of the high praise Lynch just had with A straight story two years before, I do think Cronenberg would’ve made it to BP and BD with a little bit of campaign.
It seems we do have a clear frontrunner is The Fabelmans. Nothing seems poised to upset. Seems Women Talking will have the big win of adapter screenplay. Fraser best actor. Blanchett actress. Williams supporting actress. Let’s hope Top Gun rightfully wins many techs.
yes, problem being… it is a TOO CLEAR of a frontrunner. It doesn’t matter how masterful it may be, if it is perceived as self-indulgent by the AMPAS, nom yes, wins, not so much, beyond Director.
But this year we have the chance to have the most ADORABLE set of winners ever at acting…
Fraser
Yeoh
Quan
Goldberg
Just imagine a photo of these four together holding their Oscars…
Goldberg??
she’s playing the grieving grandmother in “Till”. The trailer just shows a glimpse of her, so that means one of these two things…
1) she’s a cameo (unlikely, given the issue of the film)
2) she’s the best card of the film and a complete comeback, and are holding her for the final trailer or for the film’s release
The role is likely to be a complete highlight…
Michelle Williams is the most locked of them all, I’m afraid.
Whoopi is really loved. She won for 1990’s Ghost (quite deservingly) after being robbed for 1985’s “The Color Purple”… and she probably was snubbed again for 1996’s “Ghosts of Mississippi”… her career turned to oblivion because of her contract with Disney, mostly, which forced a lack of diversity in her roles (she could have been nominated easily for Sister Act, as well), so after the comeback with “The Stand”, it may be time for a 2nd Oscar for her (rather than a 1st for Williams, thanks to the possible cathegory fraud that can be considered in this case). But honestly, a quartet of winners like Yeoh – Fraser – Goldberg – Quan is just too good to be true… Fraser and Quan look like clear frontrunners, then Yeoh who could win but has really strong contenders, and finally Goldberg which could be easily snubbed even if raved…
I said the same thing about Fraser and Quan the other day to my wife lol… So friggin adorable!
I don’t think anyone in AMPAS wouldn’t quickly empathize with Fraser and Quan’s narratives and they are two actors that have been loved/liked by their peers – and audiences – for decades… I can picture Ian McKellen being enthusiastic about the idea of Brendan winning an Oscar, and Harrison Ford, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg lobbying for Quan to be rewarded after he made SO clear, how much talent has been wasted for not giving him chances… Both of them could actually sweep precursors on their way to Oscar night. Hopefully they do.
I finally saw Top Gun last weekend and thought it was OK. Too long for sure, but I liked the nostalgia elements and thought Miles Teller was perfectly cast. The ensemble was great too.
Aside from that, Cruise had a few nice moments that will not amount to him being nominated and the screenplay was kind of a mess.
I do not expect it to feature in the Oscar race–certainly not any above the line categories.
As for EEAAO, I liked it, but I see it as too frenetic for the Academy–and it was almost too much for me, a total assault on the senses. I simply can’t see the Academy going for it, box office or not. We live in times where box office doesn’t really matter, all of a sudden its just going to matter again? I don’t think so. Screenplay for sure, maybe Yeoh, Quan and Hsu are less likely. But I did enjoy all the performances FWIW.
Your thoughts are similar to mine on Everything Everywhere. I felt it was too much for me and an attack on the senses. Weirdly, my favourite part was when it slowed down and the two rocks were having a conversation existentialism. I thought that was amazing and right up my Alley. I think the fillm comes through in the end, though. It is really a family drama or psychodrama and it was very moving at the end. I didn’t expect them to pull that off and I’m usually not taken in by that kind of thing. But this was a lovely surprise. I don’t see it winning, but I think it will got lots of nominations Screenplay and multiple acting nominations and a few tech as well. Yeoh could win. Screenplay could win as well but there are at keast two big challengers on that category. One thing is certain and that’s Everything Everywhere has connected with a lot of people.
Agree with you on the emotional aspects of the film. Not sure about any wins though.
I’ve seen much worse winners in Screenplay and acting, but it’s got very difficult challengers in both categories. However, I do see it winning Film Editing. That’s the first thing that comes to mind while watching it.
I can absolutely understand people feeling the ‘assault’. But I think BECAUSE of the frenetic quality of the first half+ of the film it really makes the rock section and the ending land with huge payoff. If the film hadn’t been set up that way it wouldn’t have been as effective and that makes me respect it all even more.
I just made my 4th and final big-screen round of Top Gun: Maverick earlier this week. I was just as struck by the cleanliness and efficiency of every scene of it as a sequel as I was on opening weekend.
I want Eddie Hamilton to win, hmm, most of the Best Editing awards in the coming months. Seriously.
Could it be that you and others are just in love with the original and are blinded to what this film actually offers?
I’ve only ever seen the original once, on the big screen in early summer 2021 in Dolby Atmos.
Undeniably killer jukebox soundtrack and spectacular flying sequences, but man, that plot made for one weird blockbuster to get popular in 1986.
Back to the masterful sequel…
If I were blind, I wouldn’t watch a new release on the big screen 4x to confirm for myself whether a great film is a great film.
This just in:
The National Book Award will now only consider works by Stuart Woods, James Patterson, John Grisham, E. L James, and Danielle Steel for its top fiction prize. “It’s about time beach reads were considered brilliant works of literature,” stated a press release.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa8ce9564cb8a886fb6264ffa5770fa27c6125dbc34c21a3f3e898a04ba191bc.gif
The Fabelmans’ in.
The Greatest Beer Run Ever out.
MC has spoken.
You didn’t need Metacritic to tell you that. All you needed to know was Zac Efron was the star.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a17b68bca4dde8effec92166eb4eff8ad58b232484afdc2086639ba9b79c556c.gif
it’ll be funny if Zac wins an acting Oscar in the next 10 years… it’s true that the only film I really liked him is “Hairspray” (everyone was excellent there, capturing the camp tone required)… I just remind you that other actors that were laughed at, for their “acting” abilities include Penelope Cruz (4 noms, 1 win), Matthew McConnaghey (1 win) or Sandra Bullock (2 noms, 1 win)… so never say never… careers can last
I thought he was great as Ted Bundy I thought he would Netflix should’ve campaigned him for that
No one EVER laughed at Penelope Cruz. She was nominated for a Goya with her very first film.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c9be01d075e79dd4db53acea25ba01b03ea677723720989ab949c9135bd91036.gif
She was definitely scoffed at because of her English Language movies at first.
You are completely wrong. Her first English language films were Talk Of Angels, Hi-Lo Country, and All The Pretty Horses. All were quality projects that for one reason or another didn’t work, but it’s not like she was starring in Adam Sandler movies, and two of those directors were Oscar nominees and winners Stephen Frears and Billy Bob Thornton.
Maybe you shouldn’t try to school the person that lives in Spain about a Spanish actress.
When he’s commenting about American films, I’m perfectly fine with it. I was, you know, actually here when they came out and read the reviews. Not one scoffed at her.
*cough* Sahara *cough*
It seems you were NOT here at the Oscarwatch days, where people laughed at me for telling how great actress she was, and how robbed she was from an Oscar nomination (and win) for 1998’s “La Niña de tus Ojos” (The Girl of your Dreams) that had the ultra-bad-luck to be released the very same year and race than “Life is Beautiful”, being both dramedies revolving about the nazis and the holocaust, even if from completely different perspectives. Everyone knows about Begnini’s masterpiece, but Trueba’s (who won 1993’s Foreign Film Oscar, with “Belle Epoque”, co-starring Cruz as well) is a delightful retelling/reimagination of the real life sexual harassment of Goebbels to spanish star “Imperio Argentina” (here renamed/reimagined as “Macarena Granada”) while shooting at UFA studios in Berlin, a spanish-german co-production in the 30s. Great, great film, and frankly funny at some points, without ever forgetting about the crimes of fascism in both countries (Germany and Spain). A must-see, that had not been a “Life is Beautiful” at the same year, probably could have gotten through multiple Oscar categories and even be nominated for Foreign Film… Actress, Costume come quickly to mind as a couple of nominations it could have scored)
(for the matter, she has won three “national academies” Awards in 3 different countries for performances in three different languages*… Oscar, David and Goya – USA, Italy and Spain… I wonder how many performers have achieved so)
* arguably, her “Vicky Christina Barcelona” performance is billingual (but I think Nine was only english-spoken?).
I don’t wanna be a broken record but there’s no way Amazon is not gonna campaign Howard’s movie. Being the Ricardo’s had a 67% on RT and did very good
actually the film is pretty decent, and people who didn’t see “The Rescue” will swallow it up, in seconds.
Snubbing The Rescue in Best Doc Feature was stupid.
Not as stupid as snubbing Apollo 11 (or Three Identical Strangers or Won’t You Be My Neighbor or Jane or Life Itself or Blackfish or…), but stupid nonetheless.
Let AMPAS’ Documentary branch be anathema.
It’s quite stunning to read something that is so aggressively pushing a notion of populism (although apparently anything can be a populist choice no matter whether people actually watched or liked them as long as Sasha liked them, see The Last Duel and Vengeance) also complain about how everyone thinks that they’re an expert. A genuinely populist approach towards discussing what are the great movies of the year would require actual participation from audiences through their financial support but it seems like this only applies when Sasha can use it as a blunt tool to fight what they seem to consider so horrible about their perception of the American left. If we’re actually arguing for the movies that more mainstream people like, why is this site never talking about Marvel movies and trying to push them into the race? Or for example why was there pretty much no discussion about the new Star Wars movies after The Force Awakens? In order for a populist approach to seem reasonable, one should be actually engaging with the populus, seeing those movies, writing about those movies, instead of just vaguely waving towards the concept of populism in order to prove that you’re not “in the bubble”.
The Oscars have always been Goldilocks, there is nothing new about that concept. The Oscars have always looked down on populist genre fare, and the Oscars have never been capable of embracing cinema that differs too strongly from certain Hollywood traditions. And do I remember incorrectly that there was beyond Zhuo-Ning Su’s Cannes coverage no mention of Memoria on this site last year? How about Petite Maman or What Do We See When We Look at the Sky? Or F9 or Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings? If movies like these aren’t being discussed, then this site is also Goldilocks.
Is this a conservative version of virtue signalling? Also, do people lose all their logical reasoning if they become more conservative? I don’t know what’s happening with the right, but they’ no longer seem capable of making rational arguments.
And you’re just noticing this NOW???
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a294d8e87938f117578165b89a791ed288b79f67785f3739cb933c388bdd457.gif
Honestly I wish the Oscar blogging community and more than a few of the Oscar bloggers’ communities would remember that not every movie is being deliberately made with an eye towards Oscar. That concept unfortunately informs some of the tangential complaining about “Oscar bait” or “out of touch movies” or “populism”. We all can go on Turner Classic Movies app and see about 200 stone cold classics listed and realize that barely 10 percent of them even scraped Oscar, let alone won one. Oscar is really a snapshot of what a small group of people thought about 50 films or so for two months in a calendar year.
I agree with your overall point, but Oscar bait does exist.
Sure, but the reflexive “this is Oscar bait” that gets hurled around by some people is overly broad
I don’t like that kind of generalisation in either way. Some films are Oscar baits but overwhelming amount of films have absolutely nothing to do with the Oscars.
How’s this for vague, then?:
Nominate Top Gun: Maverick + RRR: Rise, Roar, Revolt + Everything Everywhere All at Once for both Best Picture and Best Director.
Heck, throw in Nope while we’re at it.
Nominate these and don’t look back.
The original Top Gun was a huge cultural sensation; it was the #1 box office movie in America that year, grossing $350 million which is equivalent to about $950 million today.
Was it nominated for Best Picture? No, of course not. Screenplay? Directing? Acting? Nope, nope, and nope. It won Original Song and was nominated for a few techs.
Best Picture that year went to Platoon, a left wing political film that grossed $130 million, equivalent to $375 million today.
That’s the difference between then and now. It’s not that movies like Top Gun used to contend for Best Picture; they almost never did. It’s that audiences used to turn out for serious, mature movies like Platoon, even when they had a clear political slant, and now they don’t. That’s what’s changed, not the movies themselves.
Maybe it’s because of streaming, maybe it’s because Americans have gotten more sensitive and whiny about politics and encountering ideas that they disagree with, maybe it’s some combination of the two, but the movies aren’t any different. It’s hard for me to think of a film maker who is more on the nose and preachy with their “messages” than Oliver Stone, yet he was a big box office draw in the ’80s and early ’90s
So it doesn’t make much sense to say that in the Good Ol’ Days Top Gun would’ve been a major BP contender. The original wasn’t, and a lot of the same public that went nuts for Top Gun was also willing to watch and enjoy Platoon.
I mean I’m not interested anymore. As someone who always straddled being interested in the Oscar race and being a huge genre fan, there’s nothing to get excited about anymore. I realized last year that the studios kinda hate the fans. And by that I mean Disney and Warner Bros. The fans were constantly telling them what they don’t want. Then the studios would turn around and give them just that. I was confused because this was about money. They were constantly giving fans the finger and I couldn’t understand how they thought that would be good for business. Then I realized the box office doesn’t matter to them anymore. Just the stock price. So where fans used to matter now only shareholders do. That’s why they were so keen to get rid of huge stars during the initial MeToo days. Because they were more concerned what shareholders would do on the day so they got rid of huge stars before the end of the trading day. Then that model stuck. I’ve been listening to fans complaints for 3 years property to property and all the studios do is double down on not giving a shit. So if the people who used to care about getting butts in seats just don’t care anymore, why will the people who never did care about eyes on their award show start?
There are a small percentage of creators in Hollywood right now who still want to entertain people. Some of them might care about either awards or box office but that’s because they’re just old.
The slate of Oscar movies recently hasn’t been interesting to me. I’ve seen a few movies in the theater this year amazingly. I think the only one that isn’t really flawed is BULLET TRAIN. Even I wouldn’t pretend that could be nominated for anything. Unless they added a stunt choreography category. And I’m only looking forward to one movie in the future which is in the same wheelhouse, JOHN WICK 4. That’s it. I’m amazed by this fact. In 2019 I loved so many movies but the pandemic upended everything. We’ve not recovered yet. I’m not sure if we will. The only people going full steam ahead are these entities that keep churning out crap that no one really believes is good but people are consuming out of habit. It’s like this ridiculous dance the studios and fans who’ve prepaid for a year’s subscription to their favorite streaming service are doing. And they’re dancing right into the gutter. People don’t care because they’re not thinking anymore because it’s too hard. They’re like ‘give me shit and I’ll pay for it as long as I can stay distracted from this horrifying world’. It’s a dance of death really. I’m not sure anyone actually wants to survive.
I agree, this is a big part of the industry’s problem. This teenage goth “everything sucks, boo hoo” mentality that’s become so fashionable in the nation’s culture.
I agree, this is a big part of the industry’s problem. This teenage goth “everything sucks, boo hoo” mentality that’s become so fashionable in the nation’s culture.
I’m curious. What were fans asking WB and Disney?
To make another Superman with Henry Cavill. To remove Amber Heard and reinstate Johnny Depp. To make quality films instead of just appeasing people who need to be seen. To stop race/gender swapping to make some kind of statement instead of telling an interesting story. Look at the backlash on THE LITTLE MERMAID. It’s coming from both sides. THE WOMAN KING? Backlash from the Left. The people they think they’re pandering to don’t want it either. All anyone wants is quality entertainment but they don’t know how to do that anymore. People like TOP GUN MAVERICK because it was straight up entertainment that everyone could enjoy. If it were Oscar quality, I’d be all for it. But I really think everyone is desperate. The box office was driven by a need for, not speed, but the theater experience. We’ve been hearing for years that people hated going to the theaters. I think that proved that theory wrong, as did National Cinema Day. No one wants movies or the Oscars to die. But the people driving the bus are taking it off a cliff.
Two of the three Superman movies he made were gargantuan flops, and one of them did ok.
It is 100% certain that this backlash has nothing to do with the quality of the film because the film has not yet been released.
Oh I’ve hated the Snyderverse. But none of us blame Cavill. I think most of us would be happy with him and a different director.
As far as TLM goes, that’s the problem. No one is judging the film. It’s about film Twitter, which consists of a lot of people who I doubt even watch movies. But everybody is pissed already. You could end up with another BATGIRL situation which would be really awful.
No, most people aren’t pissed. To most people it’s just a movie. Anyone can choose to just watch it and enjoy it, or skip it and live their lives. If someone freely chooses to be unhappy, that’s on them.
Cherry, you’ve always been my favorite Soc girl.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/37973a6ca39a8e1fc41e4aa1d18414332f7ed4ecea13010b11573f5154e5215d.gif
By the way Cherry Valance is also the name of John Ireland’s character in Red River ! John Wayne shoots him at the end of the movie just before the confrontation with Montgomery Clift !
So you should vote for The Fabelmans because Spielberg is a legend and an Icon ? So every movie that St . Steven and St . Marty make is automatically the favorite ! Not in my dojo ! Why should anyone else make a movie if it’s already a done deal ?
I think they just want Spielberg to win because he is an old white man.
Spielberg won for two truly acclaimed films that were very challenging. This would be big come down if he wins this year.
People also complain that the March Madness winner in a tourney full of upsets has an asterisk next to their trophy. You can only win against the teams in your bracket. Winning BP doesn’t mean that you made the best film of your career, it only means that you made a film that won on a ballot against 4 to 9 other films.
True, but a third win is supposed to be for something exceptional. Or at least not to win over films that might deserved it more. I just think that kinda thing might occur to them when giving the Oscar. I get that it’s not about meritocracy and more about who you know and like. I believe that will be the factor if Spielberg wins a third for The Fabelmans
You’ve seen Fabelmans?
Poor Meryl.
The Iron Lady.
That was one of the arguments against her win that year. However, she’s messed so many for other great performances, so she was due some luck. And there wasn’t really another obvious winner that year. Anyway, I’m always for great films and performances winning, especially over not so great ones by previous winner.
Sorry, wrong one.
Because people don’t make films to win awards. Period.
It’s difficult spotting trends until we start seeing the guild nominations. Are there going to be any shocks like CODA coming down the pike? Maybe? People in my opinion put too much weight on Twitter’s influence on the final nominations. Everything Everywhere has been helped a ton by being the oddball film that made real money. The film has a great chance at 8 nominations if it campaigns aggressively. Even Top Gun has a real chance even with an Academy that hasn’t really been that enthused about Cruise. Maybe the pattern of small films winning will be broken. I don’t know, but I think it might if any of the remaining contenders breaks 100 million. Even something like Wakanda Forever will be in a great position if it lands this year. Spielberg perhaps gets coronated. Everything and anything is possible. Love this time of year.