|
Post by Sharbs on Mar 16, 2019 14:54:43 GMT
You know the drill, add borderline performances you want clarified also original vs adapted for screenplays/scores
Wednesday 3/20 is the deadline to get requests in. Then we'll vote on those.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 16, 2019 14:58:31 GMT
Well, we gotta deal with the obvious - The Favourite trio!
Also Mahershala Ali in Green Book.
And as far as screenplays go, we gotta firmly decide on The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.
As for scores...I guess The Ballad of Buster Scruggs would also be the one under questioning since a lot of themes in it aren't original and were adapted by Burwell for the score.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 16, 2019 14:58:47 GMT
Not even gonna bother with The Favourite trio because they're all lead, goddammit.
Andrea Riseborough, Mandy Alex Wolff, Hereditary Stephan James, If Beale Street Could Talk Nicki Micheaux, Lowlife (seriously needs to be on everyone's radar regardless of placement) Elizabeth Debicki, Widows (a very strong argument can be made that she's at least on Davis's level in terms of focus, arc and importance) Blake Lively, A Simple Favor
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 16, 2019 15:00:25 GMT
And as far as screenplays go, we gotta firmly decide on The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. I don't know how we could argue against Scruggs being anything but adapted. A third of it is taken almost verbatim from existing material. Just because the bulk of it is original is largely inconsequential, unless you have a percentage-based system in place.
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Mar 16, 2019 15:06:15 GMT
Emily Blunt, A Quiet Place Rachel McAdams, Disobedience Timothee Chalamet, Beautiful Boy
Adding ones that were wrongly put in supporting this awards season.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 16, 2019 15:06:50 GMT
And as far as screenplays go, we gotta firmly decide on The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. I don't know how we could argue against Scruggs being anything but adapted. A third of it is taken almost verbatim from existing material. Just because the bulk of it is original is largely inconsequential, unless you have a percentage-based system in place. I mean, I agree. We all just need to confirm that everyone's on board with this because who the heck knows what some folks may think!
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 16, 2019 15:07:27 GMT
Also I hope nobody is crazy enough to follow the stupid awards decision to place Thomasin McKenzie in supporting for Leave No Trace.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 16, 2019 15:12:37 GMT
Wednesday 3/20 is the deadline to get requests in. Then we'll vote on those. I would like to submit that Juliette Binoche in High Life may be a potential bone of contention on this score, so perhaps we'll hold a special runoff later to determine hers, as well as any extreme late entries as well?
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Mar 16, 2019 15:23:19 GMT
Carey Mulligan and Jake Gyllenhaal in Wildlife.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Mar 16, 2019 15:24:22 GMT
Also I hope nobody is crazy enough to follow the stupid awards decision to place Thomasin McKenzie in supporting for Leave No Trace. Foster should actually maybe be on our list for this ... I personally consider him leading but I know the argument has been made for him in supporting.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Mar 16, 2019 15:34:08 GMT
And as far as screenplays go, we gotta firmly decide on The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. I don't know how we could argue against Scruggs being anything but adapted. A third of it is taken almost verbatim from existing material. Just because the bulk of it is original is largely inconsequential, unless you have a percentage-based system in place. Is there no argument? As the rest of the material isn't augmented from the adapted works like say a Dr. Strangelove or There Will Be Blood, which are very different from their original source materials, yet still are clearly built off from that. The majority of the stories are original works without any connection to those sources of the adapted works. It's a grey area that only really exists in anthologies, and typically we'd avoid having to classify such works since anthologies typically aren't very good therefore won't be competing for best writing.
The closest thing I can think of is Birdman, where portions of that were directly adapted from Raymond Carver as the play within the film, (clearly separated from the original material as well) and that was considered original on here and by the Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 16, 2019 15:45:08 GMT
I don't know how we could argue against Scruggs being anything but adapted. A third of it is taken almost verbatim from existing material. Just because the bulk of it is original is largely inconsequential, unless you have a percentage-based system in place. Is there no argument? As the rest of the material isn't augmented from the adapted works like say a Dr. Strangelove or There Will Be Blood, which are very different from their original source materials, yet still are clearly built off from that. The majority of the stories are original works without any connection to those sources of the adapted works. It's a grey area that only really exists in anthologies, and typically we'd avoid having to classify such works since anthologies typically aren't very good therefore won't be competing for best writing.
The closest thing I can think of is Birdman, where portions of that were directly adapted from Raymond Carver as the play within the film, (clearly separated from the original material as well) and that was considered original on here and by the Oscars.
Birdman did come to mind, but I also think that the inherent primary story isn't adapted from Carver, but it merely quotes some of his work and uses adaptation of his work as a jump-off point for the story (but really, there's only two scenes in the entire piece that actually use Carver's existing story; some of those scenes in the play aren't actually in "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love"). I'd liken it to an original script using a real-life figure's words as a way of augmenting the story. Scruggs is different. It uses two existing stories, and those two stories are a.) both the lengthiest in the piece, and b.) are transcribed pretty much verbatim. So I see it as an entirely different circumstance than Birdman because while Birdman built an original story around the idea of an adaptation, Scruggs actually made the adaptation the focus for 1/3 of the movie. It's more of a There Will Be Blood scenario to me than it is a Birdman one. Yes, the Coens wrote a majority original story, but those two segments just can't be ignored unless you opted to grade each segment on its own merits and deemed "Meal Ticket," "Near Algodones," "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs" and "The Mortal Remains" individually original while the other two are individually adapted. If it were an anthology written by multiple people (that is, multiple creative minds; the Coens are practically one person), I'd maybe consider that . . . but the Coens wrote what they wrote with the intent of having two pre-existing stories built into the fabric of the script. Hell, O Brother is much vaguer in its adaptation of Homer and we don't really debate its placement. I do get the argument. I just don't subscribe to it.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Mar 16, 2019 16:01:40 GMT
Is there no argument? As the rest of the material isn't augmented from the adapted works like say a Dr. Strangelove or There Will Be Blood, which are very different from their original source materials, yet still are clearly built off from that. The majority of the stories are original works without any connection to those sources of the adapted works. It's a grey area that only really exists in anthologies, and typically we'd avoid having to classify such works since anthologies typically aren't very good therefore won't be competing for best writing.
The closest thing I can think of is Birdman, where portions of that were directly adapted from Raymond Carver as the play within the film, (clearly separated from the original material as well) and that was considered original on here and by the Oscars.
Birdman did come to mind, but I also think that the inherent primary story isn't adapted from Carver, but it merely quotes some of his work and uses adaptation of his work as a jump-off point for the story (but really, there's only two scenes in the entire piece that actually use Carver's existing story; some of those scenes in the play aren't actually in "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love"). I'd liken it to an original script using a real-life figure's words as a way of augmenting the story. Scruggs is different. It uses two existing stories, and those two stories are a.) both the lengthiest in the piece, and b.) are transcribed pretty much verbatim. So I see it as an entirely different circumstance than Birdman because while Birdman built an original story around the idea of an adaptation, Scruggs actually made the adaptation the focus for 1/3 of the movie. It's more of a There Will Be Blood scenario to me than it is a Birdman one. Yes, the Coens wrote a majority original story, but those two segments just can't be ignored unless you opted to grade each segment on its own merits and deemed "Meal Ticket," "Near Algodones," "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs" and "The Mortal Remains" individually original while the other two are individually adapted. If it were an anthology written by multiple people (that is, multiple creative minds; the Coens are practically one person), I'd maybe consider that . . . but the Coens wrote what they wrote with the intent of having two pre-existing stories built into the fabric of the script. Hell, O Brother is much vaguer in its adaptation of Homer and we don't really debate its placement. I do get the argument. I just don't subscribe to it. I actually do place it adapted myself, I just think it is certainly open for discussion.
Speaking of open for discussion when it comes to adapted/original, should First Reformed (asking for a friend since I won't be voting for it either way), be in Original? It lifts heavily from Diary of A Country Priest, more so than a simple homage. Although I don't think it is as blatantly non-original as Love is Strange (Make Way For Tomorrow) and Blue Jasmine (A Streetcar Named Desire), it does owe a great deal to that previous work.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 16, 2019 16:11:31 GMT
I don't know how we could argue against Scruggs being anything but adapted. A third of it is taken almost verbatim from existing material. Just because the bulk of it is original is largely inconsequential, unless you have a percentage-based system in place. Is there no argument? As the rest of the material isn't augmented from the adapted works like say a Dr. Strangelove or There Will Be Blood, which are very different from their original source materials, yet still are clearly built off from that. The majority of the stories are original works without any connection to those sources of the adapted works. It's a grey area that only really exists in anthologies, and typically we'd avoid having to classify such works since anthologies typically aren't very good therefore won't be competing for best writing. The closest thing I can think of is Birdman, where portions of that were directly adapted from Raymond Carver as the play within the film, (clearly separated from the original material as well) and that was considered original on here and by the Oscars.
I think these are very different cases though. Birdman just features a couple of scenes where we see the characters simply reenact Carver and these scenes are not the story itself, while in Buster Scruggs the two adapted segments are the story. I mean, if someone makes a movie about characters doing a play, I don't think it should be considered adapted just because it may have a couple of scenes of them doing that play. Lady Bird has some scenes with characters doing Sondheim but they're just that, scenes of them doing Sondheim. If the writers of Birdman actively incorporated Carver's writing into their script as part of its story, then it would've been another case. And on a different note, it's so much fun seeing you and Stephen argue and discuss things because I instantly remember a time from IMDb boards when some folks used to think you two were actually the same person with a sock account
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 16, 2019 16:16:34 GMT
Is there no argument? As the rest of the material isn't augmented from the adapted works like say a Dr. Strangelove or There Will Be Blood, which are very different from their original source materials, yet still are clearly built off from that. The majority of the stories are original works without any connection to those sources of the adapted works. It's a grey area that only really exists in anthologies, and typically we'd avoid having to classify such works since anthologies typically aren't very good therefore won't be competing for best writing. The closest thing I can think of is Birdman, where portions of that were directly adapted from Raymond Carver as the play within the film, (clearly separated from the original material as well) and that was considered original on here and by the Oscars.
I think these are very different cases though. Birdman just features a couple of scenes where we see the characters simply reenact Carver and these scenes are not the story itself, while in Buster Scruggs the two adapted segments are the story. I mean, if someone makes a movie about characters doing a play, I don't think it should be considered adapted just because it may have a couple of scenes of them doing that play. Lady Bird has some scenes with characters doing Sondheim but they're just that, scenes of them doing Sondheim. If the writers of Birdman actively incorporated Carver's writing into their script as part of its story, then it would've been another case. And on a different note, it's so much fun seeing you and Stephen argue and discuss things because I instantly remember a time from IMDb boards when some folks used to think you two were actually the same person with a sock account Apparently I reproduce by asexual cell division. First it was Dan_Quixote, then it was finniussnrub. At one point someone actually accused Cheesecake of being a sock account of me.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 16, 2019 16:16:42 GMT
Birdman did come to mind, but I also think that the inherent primary story isn't adapted from Carver, but it merely quotes some of his work and uses adaptation of his work as a jump-off point for the story (but really, there's only two scenes in the entire piece that actually use Carver's existing story; some of those scenes in the play aren't actually in "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love"). I'd liken it to an original script using a real-life figure's words as a way of augmenting the story. Scruggs is different. It uses two existing stories, and those two stories are a.) both the lengthiest in the piece, and b.) are transcribed pretty much verbatim. So I see it as an entirely different circumstance than Birdman because while Birdman built an original story around the idea of an adaptation, Scruggs actually made the adaptation the focus for 1/3 of the movie. It's more of a There Will Be Blood scenario to me than it is a Birdman one. Yes, the Coens wrote a majority original story, but those two segments just can't be ignored unless you opted to grade each segment on its own merits and deemed "Meal Ticket," "Near Algodones," "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs" and "The Mortal Remains" individually original while the other two are individually adapted. If it were an anthology written by multiple people (that is, multiple creative minds; the Coens are practically one person), I'd maybe consider that . . . but the Coens wrote what they wrote with the intent of having two pre-existing stories built into the fabric of the script. Hell, O Brother is much vaguer in its adaptation of Homer and we don't really debate its placement. I do get the argument. I just don't subscribe to it. I actually do place it adapted myself, I just think it is certainly open for discussion. Speaking of open for discussion when it comes to adapted/original, should First Reformed (asking for a friend since I won't be voting for it either way), be in Original? It lifts heavily from Diary of A Country Priest, more so than a simple homage. Although I don't think it is as blatantly non-original as Love is Strange (Make Way For Tomorrow) and Blue Jasmine (A Streetcar Named Desire), it does owe a great deal to that previous work.
I think First Reformed should definitely be in Original, as should Blue Jasmine or Love is Strange. We may think these movies take stuff from other movies, we may think of them as ripoffs or basically remakes, but nowhere in the credits is it acknowledged that they're adapted from anything. So unless it is directly stipulated, I don't think we should be making decisions like this just based on how we feel. That opens up a lot of muddy waters - anyone can think that anything is a ripoff or a remake.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 16, 2019 16:17:57 GMT
I actually do place it adapted myself, I just think it is certainly open for discussion.
Speaking of open for discussion when it comes to adapted/original, should First Reformed (asking for a friend since I won't be voting for it either way), be in Original? It lifts heavily from Diary of A Country Priest, more so than a simple homage. Although I don't think it is as blatantly non-original as Love is Strange (Make Way For Tomorrow) and Blue Jasmine (A Streetcar Named Desire), it does owe a great deal to that previous work.
Yeah, First Reformed really should be analyzed in much the same way Blue Jasmine is. It's a 21st-century update of that film, but an update it still is, and thematically it doesn't tread any new ground.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 16, 2019 17:37:07 GMT
isn't it a bit early for this since people have a lot left to see and the AMARA deadline isn't till June? I'm all for making submissions but we shouldn't vote on these placements until we get closer to the deadline. I'm only speaking for myself but there's a fair bit I still want to see and for all I know some of those films might have performances with questionable placements.
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Mar 20, 2019 9:19:06 GMT
Millicent Simmonds, A Quiet Place Matthew McConaughey, White Boy Rick Josh Brolin, Avengers: Infinity War ( I can see an argument for lead here)
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Mar 21, 2019 13:15:09 GMT
Also I hope nobody is crazy enough to follow the stupid awards decision to place Thomasin McKenzie in supporting for Leave No Trace. Foster should actually maybe be on our list for this ... I personally consider him leading but I know the argument has been made for him in supporting. I have him in leading too, but he's much more believable as a supporting nominee than McKenzie.
|
|
|
Post by pessimusreincarnated on Mar 21, 2019 13:25:20 GMT
Weisz and Stone's placements for The Favourite should definitely be debatable- IMO they're both lead along with Colman.
|
|
|
Post by Sharbs on Mar 21, 2019 15:48:52 GMT
end of today to get submissions in. then we'll tally away.
we'll absolutely hold another round of this for later entries
|
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,084
Likes: 2,202
|
Post by speeders on Mar 21, 2019 16:31:33 GMT
Ben Foster, Leave No Trace Thomasin McKenzie, Leave No Trace The Favourite trio Olivia Cooke, Thoroughbreds Anya Taylor-Joy, Thoroughbreds Emily Blunt, A Quiet Place John Krasinski, A Quiet Place Jeff Bridges, Bad Times at El Royale Cynthia Erivo, Bad Times at El Royale Joaquin Phoenix, The Sisters Brothers Carey Mulligan, Wildlife Jake Gyllenhaal, Wildlife Ed Oxenbould, Wildlife Natalie Portman, Vox Lux Raffey Cassidy, Vox Lux Denis Ménochet, Custody Léa Drucker, Custody Thomas Gioria, Custody Lily Franky, Shoplifters Sakura Ando, Shoplifters Mayu Matsuoka, Shoplifters Jyo Kairi, Shoplifters Siobhan Finneran, Apostasy
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 21, 2019 19:29:10 GMT
Joanna Kulig - Cold War Adam Driver - BlacKkKlansman
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 22, 2019 0:34:30 GMT
Siobhan Finneran, Sacha Parkinson and Molly Wright in Apostasy.
|
|