It is now halfway through June, nearly halfway through the year.
In what I believe is an unprecedented situation, it seems unlikely to impossible that any film that has qualified for nominations so far this year will receive any nominations in the top 8 categories (picture, acting, director, writing).
Last year, we already had La Vie en rose and Away from Herin release, and there was speculation about Zodiac, Once and Waitress.
In 2006, had opened, and Cars, Akeelah and the Bee, The Da Vinci Code (Ian McKellan at least), Thank You for Smoking had opened and were discussed.
In 2005, Crash and Cinderella Man were out.
23 weeks into this year - is there a single remotely possibly nomination from among the films we've seen?
This really is a bad sign for the Oscars - both in the quality as well as quantity of contenders, but also the increased narrowing of the time frame in which they are placed.
I've said before - the Oscars are heading for a major crisis, both in interest but also in terms of the limited range of qualifying films. At some point soon, my guess is that consideration of films shown on other venues - including high-end cable or home delivery - is going to be needed if enough decent entries are to be found.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
Oh there is hope. We still have many high expectations films to be released in the fall and early winter. There may even be a surprise" Sixth Sense" kind of film to get a summer release. Though 2008 may not be a memorable Oscar year it will catch up in quality films.
Posts: 453 | Location: Tupelo, MS | Registered: January 01, 2003
Should Richard Jenkins do well at the critics's awards for "The Vistitor" he could be a best actor nominee. The film also seems a likely screenplay nominee.
Posts: 14695 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
If you really wanted to stretch, you could call 'The Other Bolelyn Girl' a possible nominee.
I see your point, but I also have to disagree.
Let's, for instance, look at your examples.
You cite 'La Vie En Rose' and 'Away From Her' from last year.
Total number of Oscar nominations from those two films? Five. Out of 114 nominees.
In 2006, you cite 'Cars,' 'Akeelah and the Bee,' 'The Da Vinci Code,' and 'Thank You For Smoking.' Total number of Oscar nominations for those movies? Two, both for 'Cars.'
So, I wouldn't write the obituary for the Oscars just quite yet.
As far as your question on "Is there a single remotely possible nomination from among the films we've seen?", the answer is "Yes."
I'm sure that "Bolelyn" will be a contender for a nomination in costume, that "Hulk" and "Iron Man" will have some representation in the technical categories, and that a pitch will be made for "SATC" in costume design.
Additionally, your suggestion of high end cable contenders being Oscar nominees is puzzling. So, Paul Giamatti would be a contender for both an Oscar and an Emmy for "John Adams"? How would that work? Would it be a final validation of "Oscar is worth more than Emmy", which we all know is true, but is also kind of an insult to all of those Emmy winners out there (i.e. saying that their award is crap)?
And why stop there? Why not nominate Deanna Dugan for an Oscar instead of a Tony? If we're opening the gates that wide, let's open them all the way.
Originally posted by pacinofan: Should Richard Jenkins do well at the critics's awards for "The Visitor" he could be a best actor nominee. The film also seems a likely screenplay nominee.
I agree. Jenkins is outstanding and deserves consideration.
Maybe Peter Bart's comments will be heeded, and Robert Downey will get a nomination for "Iron Man". I can kind of see it. If Downey is going to be nominated some time, why not now for a good performance in a difficult genre (for actually having good acting in it)?
A couple of nominations for quality actors in crowd-pleasers wouldn't go amiss in maintaining the Oscars as the most important awards. Although if that translates into nominating a merely competent journeyman such as Will Smith over Richard Jenkins, give me Jenkins any day. So I guess I'm ambivalent.
Should the year be weak then a highly acclaimed blockbuster like "Iron Man" could be nominated for more than the usual techie awards. In the past some popular entertainments got major noms (think "Ghost", "The Fugitive", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", etc). I'm not saying it is likely but "Iron Man" is probably the most critically acclaimed Hollywood film of 2008. I could see Robert Downey Jr. pulling a surprise best actor nom (a la Johnny Depp) for making a summer action movie into must-see viewing.
Posts: 14695 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Originally posted by MmeDeMontespan: Maybe Peter Bart's comments will be heeded, and Robert Downey will get a nomination for "Iron Man". I can kind of see it. If Downey is going to be nominated some time, why not now for a good performance in a difficult genre (for actually having good acting in it)?
A couple of nominations for quality actors in crowd-pleasers wouldn't go amiss in maintaining the Oscars as the most important awards. Although if that translates into nominating a merely competent journeyman such as Will Smith over Richard Jenkins, give me Jenkins any day. So I guess I'm ambivalent.
We were apparently having some kind of trans-American mind meld and my comments about Robert Downey Jr. got posted just moments after you.
Posts: 14695 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
I should also add that 'Kung Fu Panda' is highly likely to get a nomination for Animated Film.
I purposely excluded Animated Film from the list of categories - not to diminish it, but it is not one of the traditional big 8.
Richard Jenkins would need a win from a major group to be in contention; he's extemely unlikely.
Downey might be a longshot, although it seems like there are so many late year Oscar-bait roles out there that he seems unlikely - how many #1s do you think he'd get?
In 2006, you cite 'Cars,' 'Akeelah and the Bee,' 'The Da Vinci Code,' and 'Thank You For Smoking.' Total number of Oscar nominations for those movies? Two, both for 'Cars.'
As I said in my initial post, the dearth of likely nominees or even potential nominees is my point. All of the non-top 8 category films I cited were considered possibilities, and few if any this year are.
The Other Boleyn Girl will be lucky if it is thought of for costume design, otherwise it's a non-factor. I doubt even screeners will be sent out.
I stand by my point.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
I should also add that 'Kung Fu Panda' is highly likely to get a nomination for Animated Film.
I purposely excluded Animated Film from the list of categories - not to diminish it, but it is not one of the traditional big 8.
Richard Jenkins would need a win from a major group to be in contention; he's extemely unlikely.
Downey might be a longshot, although it seems like there are so many late year Oscar-bait roles out there that he seems unlikely - how many #1s do you think he'd get?
"The Visitor" seems to be the little movie that everyone who sees it loves so I think it could surprise in the critics' voting and the Oscar nominations. Also, even if Richard Jenkins is not a household name he is in a lot of movies (reminds me of Oscar winner Jim Broadbent) and I would assume he is well-known amongst film professionals.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 14695 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
In 2006, you cite 'Cars,' 'Akeelah and the Bee,' 'The Da Vinci Code,' and 'Thank You For Smoking.' Total number of Oscar nominations for those movies? Two, both for 'Cars.'
As I said in my initial post, the dearth of likely nominees or even potential nominees is my point. All of the non-top 8 category films I cited were considered possibilities, and few if any this year are.
The Other Boleyn Girl will be lucky if it is thought of for costume design, otherwise it's a non-factor. I doubt even screeners will be sent out.
I stand by my point.
How seriously was Aaron Eckhart being touted as a possible nominee in 2006?
Or did anyone REALLY think that McKellan would break through in the final crunch in the end to get a nomination? Or that 'Akeelah and the Bee' would really be a factor?
You can stand by your point as much as you want, but the evidence you cite seems to indicate that it isn't much of a point.
The Thank You for Smoking mention was for the script of course, not Aaron Eckhart. (If I remember correctly, it was WGA nominated). Should I repeat what the eight categories were? You can read them in my initial post.
The first wave of Da Vinci Code screenings included many mentions of McKellan as a candidate, including here. I'm talking about what seemed possible in mid-June 2006, not at the end of the year. That point stands as well.
And there were constant mentions for Keka Palmer for lead or supporting actress all the way up to the nominations for Akeelah.
You wanted proof? You just got it. Thanks for asking.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
Originally posted by seanflynn: The Thank You for Smoking mention was for the script of course, not Aaron Eckhart. (If I remember correctly, it was WGA nominated). Should I repeat what the eight categories were? You can read them in my initial post.
The first wave of Da Vinci Code screenings included many mentions of McKellan as a candidate, including here. I'm talking about what seemed possible in mid-June 2006, not at the end of the year. That point stands as well.
And there were constant mentions for Keka Palmer for lead or supporting actress all the way up to the nominations for Akeelah.
You wanted proof? You just got it. Thanks for asking.
The proof, though, is pretty flimsy.
You say that there is such a "crisis" that it might necessitate considering HBO and Showtime films.
And, yet, of the films you cite from the past two years, a grand total of seven nominations have been yielded, from a total of three films.
Originally posted by seanflynn: The Thank You for Smoking mention was for the script of course, not Aaron Eckhart. (If I remember correctly, it was WGA nominated). Should I repeat what the eight categories were? You can read them in my initial post.
The first wave of Da Vinci Code screenings included many mentions of McKellan as a candidate, including here. I'm talking about what seemed possible in mid-June 2006, not at the end of the year. That point stands as well.
And there were constant mentions for Keka Palmer for lead or supporting actress all the way up to the nominations for Akeelah.
You wanted proof? You just got it. Thanks for asking.
The proof, though, is pretty flimsy.
You say that there is such a "crisis" that it might necessitate considering HBO and Showtime films.
And, yet, of the films you cite from the past two years, a grand total of seven nominations have been yielded, from a total of three films.
Sorry, but I don't see a "crisis" there.
I actually agree. We are coming upon a time where 90% of the major noms are coming from films released on what is now the accepted Oscar season of October to December and it does not worry me. With films like "The Changeling", "Australia", "Doubt", "Frost/Nixon", "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", "Revolutionary Road", "Guerilla", etc coming out during the Oscar season I am not worried filling out a perfectly decent Oscar nom bill even if some end up as disappointments.
Posts: 14695 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
Tallulah- You challenged me on the films that I included in early year contenders for 2006. I just cited the evidence that proves there were far more in 2006 than 2008. Now you change the subject, and go to another point. You seem to be learning your arguing skills from Bush and his cabal.
As to the greater issue of a crisis - the fact (yes, the proven fact) that Oscar contenders are almost entirely crowded into one section (really one third) of the full year does indeed portend a crisis.
Why?
1) It reinforces the clear sense that the Oscars are heading more and more out of the mainstream and becoming less relevant to the public.
2) It suggests that the ongoing collapse of the specialized distributors - with Picturehouse, Warner Independent, Paramount Vantage all soon to be gone as separate units, Thinkfilm on the verge of collapse - companies that used to spread their potential nominees through the year - will lead to fewer of that kind of film even being made in the first place, and thus a smaller pool of quality films.
3) And behind the scenes, and not yet totally known commonly, more and more producers of quality work are exploring having their films either being made by cable (Recount was thought of as a theatrical release, with Sydney Pollack the original director, then made by the Meet the Parents/Focker director) or with the increasingly developed PPV home delivery system.
The economics of Oscar releases is becoming increasingly unsound. There Will Be Blood and Michael Clayton were big money losers - in part because of the $20-30 million extra in Oscar marketing expenses that won them nominations and awards, but did not remotely repay their expenditures. These things matter, even if a lot of people are catching up with reality.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
Your focus of "contention" has moved from "There aren't enough Oscar contenders coming out early enough in the year!" to "The economics of Oscar are out of whack!"
Couple things here:
(1) Who cares? These are the Oscars. It's about honoring the best in film, not the biggest, "bestest" film that connected with audiences the most.
(2) Oscar nominations still lead to a bump in box office post-nomination. Until that changes, you can't really argue that Oscar doesn't have an effect on the box office.
(3) Why is your citing four films that netted a grand total of two nominations in 2006, but yet somehow had "buzz" on these boards somehow indicative of some major wave of love and support for those films when the actual amount of nominations netted was a mere two nods? Just because it is gossiped about on here doesn't mean jack squat in terms of actual nominations if the ultimate product doesn't deliver.
And that Bush swipe? I'm like Bush because I challenged you?
Um....doesn't that sound more like Bush-ian behavior than mine does?
There you go again, changing the terms of the argument - you really need to stop it.
The # of nominations of films in the first half of the year is NOT my point. It is the number of POTENTIAL contenders I mentioned as being part of the equation. What part of that do you not get?
And my thesis is that when the first half or more of the year has virtually none, it means that overall we are likely - and I am talking long term, not just this year - that fewer of the traditional qualifying films will be made, to a large extent because of economics.
You may disagree, that's fine, but please argue based on what I write, not what suits your counterargument.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
