|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Feb 3, 2019 15:43:38 GMT
I still am. I know Roma is locked for Director/Cinematography/Foreign Film but I still think BP is going to something else. It might be naivety on my part, I just have a feeling something else is going to surprise for BP.
|
|
|
Post by bruinjoe96 on Feb 3, 2019 15:46:13 GMT
Nope
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Feb 3, 2019 15:48:03 GMT
The real question is: "Are you predicting Green Book for Best Picture?" Because that's the outcome if there's a split.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 3, 2019 15:50:44 GMT
I thought this was possible at first but lately the more I think about it, the less likely it seems. I know there are some people who inexplicably find Roma "soulless" (it most certainly is not) but I would have to go back a long way (NCFOM?) to find a BP that is as linked to its directors vision as a film.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Feb 3, 2019 15:52:41 GMT
No
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Feb 3, 2019 16:00:55 GMT
I think it's possible. Roma is a movie that relies heavily on the direction and you can love the direction, but say there are better movies, which have for example better scripts and are directed well. So I could see a scenario, where Cuaron wins director and Green Book Best Picture.
But I don't predict it right now.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Feb 3, 2019 16:32:41 GMT
No. Roma has performed well enough with the pre cursors. Like The Shape of Water, it was snubbed for SAG, and doesn't even need a win at BAFTA.
Green Book is missing the Director nod. Argo didn't have that, but Affleck performed very well with the pre cursors.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Feb 3, 2019 16:35:52 GMT
Not really, no.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 3, 2019 16:41:10 GMT
No. Roma has performed well enough with the pre cursors. Like The Shape of Water, it was snubbed for SAG, and doesn't even need a win at BAFTA. Green Book is missing the Director nod. Argo didn't have that, but Affleck performed very well with the pre cursors.Same rule can be applied for Roma. Birdman is the only film this century which won Best Picture without an editing nomination. Roma winning here would make it the 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 3, 2019 16:51:12 GMT
No. Roma has performed well enough with the pre cursors. Like The Shape of Water, it was snubbed for SAG, and doesn't even need a win at BAFTA. Green Book is missing the Director nod. Argo didn't have that, but Affleck performed very well with the pre cursors.Same rule can be applied for Roma. Birdman is the only film this century which won Best Picture without an editing nomination. Roma winning here would make it the 2nd. There are no “rules” dude. Missing directing is far more damaging than editing. Directing is the second most important prize of the night. I don’t care about the stats. The Oscars are voted by people not adding machines. Argo was a strange case that anybody who was following at the time can tell you that Affleck missing severely changed the momentum of the best picture race towards Argo. That did not happen to Peter Farley. Directing is a “big 8” award and editing is not.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 3, 2019 16:59:40 GMT
I still am. I know Roma is locked for Director/Cinematography/Foreign Film but I still think BP is going to something else. It might be naivety on my part, I just have a feeling something else is going to surprise for BP. I currently have Roma winning picture, director, cinematography, and foreign language film. But we have to see how the WGA and BAFTA turns out. Last year, I made a late break to The Shape Of Water, when every other pundit was switching from Water to Billboards. Much like 2016, I think the WGA Original Screenplay award will be the most pivotal. Right now, we have Green Book with PGA, Roma with DGA.
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Feb 3, 2019 17:05:35 GMT
I still am. I know Roma is locked for Director/Cinematography/Foreign Film but I still think BP is going to something else. It might be naivety on my part, I just have a feeling something else is going to surprise for BP. I currently have Roma winning picture, director, cinematography, and foreign language film. But we have to see how the WGA and BAFTA turns out. Last year, I made a late break to The Shape Of Water, when every other pundit was switching from Water to Billboards. Much like 2016, I think the WGA Original Screenplay award will be the most pivotal. Right now, we have Green Book with PGA, Roma with DGA. I think even with Green Book winning the WGA (which I think is likely), Roma would stay the favorite. Green Book winning it would leave the race open though.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 3, 2019 17:12:01 GMT
Same rule can be applied for Roma. Birdman is the only film this century which won Best Picture without an editing nomination. Roma winning here would make it the 2nd. There are no “rules” dude. Missing directing is far more damaging than editing. Directing is the second most important prize of the night. I don’t care about the stats. The Oscars are voted by people not adding machines. Argo was a strange case that anybody who was following at the time can tell you that Affleck missing severely changed the momentum of the best picture race towards Argo. That did not happen to Peter Farley. Directing is a “big 8” award and editing is not. Don't agree. Editing is one of the most important principles of a film. You could argue it's pretty much #1 in fact. Editing determines the flow of the film, the length of each scene, and the tone of each scene. Since 2000, only ONE film has won Best Picture without an editing nomination, and that was Birdman. Every other one had an editing nomination. Same thing goes for directing. You had Affleck and that's it. The fact that Roma missed out on that nomination is pretty relevant. Ditto for Green Book. I have said nothing about "adding machines". Just pointing out that editing miss and directing misses are handicaps for any film.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 3, 2019 17:18:34 GMT
There are no “rules” dude. Missing directing is far more damaging than editing. Directing is the second most important prize of the night. I don’t care about the stats. The Oscars are voted by people not adding machines. Argo was a strange case that anybody who was following at the time can tell you that Affleck missing severely changed the momentum of the best picture race towards Argo. That did not happen to Peter Farley. Directing is a “big 8” award and editing is not. Don't agree. Editing is one of the most important principles of a film. You could argue it's pretty much #1 in fact. Editing determines the flow of the film, the length of each scene, and the tone of each scene. Since 2000, only ONE film has won Best Picture without an editing nomination, and that was Birdman. Every other one had an editing nomination. Same thing goes for directing. You had Affleck and that's it. The fact that Roma missed out on that nomination is pretty relevant. Ditto for Green Book. I have said nothing about "adding machines". Just pointing out that editing miss and directing misses are handicaps for any film. Number 1? Come on... I feel like if Roma, a film you disliked, hadn’t missed that catagory you would not be saying this. You are getting to ridiculous to even bother with anymore. You have completely jumped the shark. Also you completely missed the point of my adding machine analogy you freaking robot.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Feb 3, 2019 17:20:39 GMT
No, I think "Roma" is taking both.
|
|
|
Post by bruinjoe96 on Feb 3, 2019 17:28:50 GMT
There are no “rules” dude. Missing directing is far more damaging than editing. Directing is the second most important prize of the night. I don’t care about the stats. The Oscars are voted by people not adding machines. Argo was a strange case that anybody who was following at the time can tell you that Affleck missing severely changed the momentum of the best picture race towards Argo. That did not happen to Peter Farley. Directing is a “big 8” award and editing is not. Don't agree. Editing is one of the most important principles of a film. You could argue it's pretty much #1 in fact. Editing determines the flow of the film, the length of each scene, and the tone of each scene. Since 2000, only ONE film has won Best Picture without an editing nomination, and that was Birdman. Every other one had an editing nomination. Same thing goes for directing. You had Affleck and that's it. The fact that Roma missed out on that nomination is pretty relevant. Ditto for Green Book. I have said nothing about "adding machines". Just pointing out that editing miss and directing misses are handicaps for any film. If editing is the most important principle of a film, then Dunkirk would've won Best Picture last year, and Hacksaw Ridge the year before that. Also Baby Driver was nominated last year, and that wasn't nominated for Best Picture.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 1,047
|
Post by chris3 on Feb 3, 2019 17:31:36 GMT
Don't agree. Editing is one of the most important principles of a film. You could argue it's pretty much #1 in fact. Editing determines the flow of the film, the length of each scene, and the tone of each scene. Since 2000, only ONE film has won Best Picture without an editing nomination, and that was Birdman. Every other one had an editing nomination. Same thing goes for directing. You had Affleck and that's it. Did Cuaron bang your mom or something? Your statistics are so hilariously skewed to grasp at ANYTHING that could end with a Roma loss, it's very weird. Similarly to Birdman, Roma is a film comprised of extremely long takes, and the editing is so refined that it often feels invisible. The Academy always goes for flashy, in-your-face editing (hence the insulting Vice nod) and rarely for something as subtle as Roma. The cinematography and sound design are both so incredible that they leave lasting, indelible impressions on the viewer. Voters probably just didn't think about the editing since the rest of the craft was so virtuosic and the editing was so understated in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 3, 2019 17:34:38 GMT
Don't agree. Editing is one of the most important principles of a film. You could argue it's pretty much #1 in fact. Editing determines the flow of the film, the length of each scene, and the tone of each scene. Since 2000, only ONE film has won Best Picture without an editing nomination, and that was Birdman. Every other one had an editing nomination. Same thing goes for directing. You had Affleck and that's it. The fact that Roma missed out on that nomination is pretty relevant. Ditto for Green Book. I have said nothing about "adding machines". Just pointing out that editing miss and directing misses are handicaps for any film. If editing is the most important principle of a film, then Dunkirk would've won Best Picture last year, and Hacksaw Ridge the year before that. Also Baby Driver was nominated last year, and that wasn't nominated for Best Picture. Not to mention The Bourne Ultimatum beating both No Country and TWBB for best editing.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 3, 2019 17:45:39 GMT
Don't agree. Editing is one of the most important principles of a film. You could argue it's pretty much #1 in fact. Editing determines the flow of the film, the length of each scene, and the tone of each scene. Since 2000, only ONE film has won Best Picture without an editing nomination, and that was Birdman. Every other one had an editing nomination. Same thing goes for directing. You had Affleck and that's it. The fact that Roma missed out on that nomination is pretty relevant. Ditto for Green Book. I have said nothing about "adding machines". Just pointing out that editing miss and directing misses are handicaps for any film. Number 1? Come on... I feel like if Roma, a film you disliked, hadn’t missed that catagory you would not be saying this. You are getting to ridiculous to even bother with anymore. You have completely jumped the shark. Also you completely missed the point of my adding machine analogy you freaking robot. Add me to your ignore list, if you don't like what I am saying. You seem to be focusing on insults rather than an intelligent conversation. I have been following the Oscars since 1997. Regardless of what I think of a film is irrelevant, it's a fact that most Best Picture winners scored directing, writing, and editing nominations. This is something I have said for many, many years. Me pointing out that Roma missed out on an editing nomination is by no means, displaying bias against Roma. I mean, how can I be "biased" against Roma, if I am projecting it to win Best Picture? Maybe I am wrong, but I feel like I am being completely fair to both Green Book and Roma. All what I am saying is that winning the PGA and DGA are relevant and makes them both strong contenders, and perhaps the WGA awards, breaks the tie. I am not sure how that is bad or "ridiculous". If you want to go into biases, which film did you like better Roma or Green Book? Would you nominate Green Book for Best Picture?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 3, 2019 17:52:12 GMT
Don't agree. Editing is one of the most important principles of a film. You could argue it's pretty much #1 in fact. Editing determines the flow of the film, the length of each scene, and the tone of each scene. Since 2000, only ONE film has won Best Picture without an editing nomination, and that was Birdman. Every other one had an editing nomination. Same thing goes for directing. You had Affleck and that's it. Did Cuaron bang your mom or something? Your statistics are so hilariously skewed to grasp at ANYTHING that could end with a Roma loss, it's very weird.Similarly to Birdman, Roma is a film comprised of extremely long takes, and the editing is so refined that it often feels invisible. The Academy always goes for flashy, in-your-face editing (hence the insulting Vice nod) and rarely for something as subtle as Roma. The cinematography and sound design are both so incredible that they leave lasting, indelible impressions on the viewer. Voters probably just didn't think about the editing since the rest of the craft was so virtuosic and the editing was so understated in comparison. Again, I am predicting Roma to win Best Picture. So I am lost on your insult. As your commentary/excuse, I heard the same things for Brokeback Mountain on editing and La La Land for missing the SAGE. There's always that excuse to missing something big.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 3, 2019 17:52:58 GMT
Number 1? Come on... I feel like if Roma, a film you disliked, hadn’t missed that catagory you would not be saying this. You are getting to ridiculous to even bother with anymore. You have completely jumped the shark. Also you completely missed the point of my adding machine analogy you freaking robot. Add me to your ignore list, if you don't like what I am saying. You seem to be focusing on insults rather than an intelligent conversation. I have been following the Oscars since 1997. Regardless of what I think of a film is irrelevant, it's a fact that most Best Picture winners scored directing, writing, and editing nominations. This is something I have said for many, many years. Me pointing out that Roma missed out on an editing nomination is by no means, displaying bias against Roma. I mean, how can I be "biased" against Roma, if I am projecting it to win Best Picture? Maybe I am wrong, but I feel like I am being completely fair to both Green Book and Roma. All what I am saying is that winning the PGA and DGA are relevant and makes them both strong contenders, and perhaps the WGA awards, breaks the tie. I am not sure how that is bad or "ridiculous". If you want to go into biases, which film did you like better Roma or Green Book? Would you nominate Green Book for Best Picture? I rate both films about an 8. I like Blackkklansman the most of all the nominees and you didn’t see me cherry picking the stats after nomination morning even though it would have been very easy. You are “predicting” Roma but every argument you make is against it winning. I think you are just trying to have your cake and eat it to. Also how the hell could you have been following since 1997 and not have heard of the Big 3 critics awards? Probably because you have been too busy crunching numbers to actually see the big picture this whole time.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 3, 2019 17:56:06 GMT
Don't agree. Editing is one of the most important principles of a film. You could argue it's pretty much #1 in fact. Editing determines the flow of the film, the length of each scene, and the tone of each scene. Since 2000, only ONE film has won Best Picture without an editing nomination, and that was Birdman. Every other one had an editing nomination. Same thing goes for directing. You had Affleck and that's it. The fact that Roma missed out on that nomination is pretty relevant. Ditto for Green Book. I have said nothing about "adding machines". Just pointing out that editing miss and directing misses are handicaps for any film. If editing is the most important principle of a film, then Dunkirk would've won Best Picture last year, and Hacksaw Ridge the year before that. Also Baby Driver was nominated last year, and that wasn't nominated for Best Picture. Never said editing is the most important principle of a film. My vote has always goes to writing. But more importantly, if directing is #1, why did Moonlight win over La La Land, Spotlight over Revenant, Crash over BBM? Your logical sequence makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 3, 2019 18:05:28 GMT
Add me to your ignore list, if you don't like what I am saying. You seem to be focusing on insults rather than an intelligent conversation. I have been following the Oscars since 1997. Regardless of what I think of a film is irrelevant, it's a fact that most Best Picture winners scored directing, writing, and editing nominations. This is something I have said for many, many years. Me pointing out that Roma missed out on an editing nomination is by no means, displaying bias against Roma. I mean, how can I be "biased" against Roma, if I am projecting it to win Best Picture? Maybe I am wrong, but I feel like I am being completely fair to both Green Book and Roma. All what I am saying is that winning the PGA and DGA are relevant and makes them both strong contenders, and perhaps the WGA awards, breaks the tie. I am not sure how that is bad or "ridiculous". If you want to go into biases, which film did you like better Roma or Green Book? Would you nominate Green Book for Best Picture? I rate both films about an 8. I like Blackkklansman the most of all the nominees and you didn’t see me cherry picking the stats after nomination morning even though it would have been very easy. You are “predicting” Roma but every argument you make is against it winning. I think you are just trying to have your cake and eat it to. Also how the hell could you have been following since 1997 and not have heard of the Big 3 critics awards? Probably because you have been too busy crunching numbers to actually see the big picture this whole time. Oh boy. Here we go with more. I never said Roma is not winning. I have only dismissed the concept that it's some "lock" and not vulnerable to losing. Big difference. If you look at my best picture rankings post, you will see who I have as #1. Guess who it is. Everything has been consistent. Funny you mention BKKK. As I said before BKKK should be winning Best Picture, seeing as how it was nominated for PGA, DGA, SAGE, and WGA, and all the major Oscar nominations. My only hipcut with BKKK is it hasn't won anything.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Morales on Feb 3, 2019 18:09:39 GMT
If editing is the most important principle of a film, then Dunkirk would've won Best Picture last year, and Hacksaw Ridge the year before that. Also Baby Driver was nominated last year, and that wasn't nominated for Best Picture. Never said editing is the most important principle of a film. My vote has always goes to writing. But more importantly, if directing is #1, why did Moonlight win over La La Land, Spotlight over Revenant, Crash over BBM? Your logical sequence makes no sense. Nowhere did bruinjoe96 say that directing is the most important principle of a film. He was merely arguing with your point that editing might arguably be the most important principle of a film.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 3, 2019 18:17:16 GMT
I rate both films about an 8. I like Blackkklansman the most of all the nominees and you didn’t see me cherry picking the stats after nomination morning even though it would have been very easy. You are “predicting” Roma but every argument you make is against it winning. I think you are just trying to have your cake and eat it to. Also how the hell could you have been following since 1997 and not have heard of the Big 3 critics awards? Probably because you have been too busy crunching numbers to actually see the big picture this whole time. Oh boy. Here we go with more. I never said Roma is not winning. I have only dismissed the concept that it's some "lock" and not vulnerable to losing. Big difference. If you look at my best picture rankings post, you will see who I have as #1. Guess who it is. Everything has been consistent. Funny you mention BKKK. As I said before BKKK should be winning Best Picture, seeing as how it was nominated for PGA, DGA, SAGE, and WGA, and all the major Oscar nominations. My only hipcut with BKKK is it hasn't won anything. You are just repeating stuff now. You can “predict” stuff but the way you talk about it’s perceived setbacks so much more than the others shows a clear bias. Also you are exactly making my point on Blackkklansman. Stats don’t mean everything.
|
|