|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Nov 24, 2019 13:54:37 GMT
So before the critics and TV award nominations start to fly in, lets all make one wild call for Oscar night, and we can see if anyone gets it right.
I'll start with them having a love in for Marriage Story and it becomes only the forth film to win the big five.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 24, 2019 14:02:34 GMT
Honestly I don't see any film that could win the big five.
If there is a film that could win most of the big Oscars, that would be the Irishman. Could win 7-8 awards, including BP and BD.
But it's unlikely to score so many Oscars imo.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 14:03:16 GMT
I think The Irishman wins one Oscar: Best Supporting Actor.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 24, 2019 14:33:40 GMT
I guess I could reasonably be talked into one scenario or another for every award except Best Director ....no one is touching Martin Scorsese who not only did the work itself so he wins on merit but he has an overwhelming narrative to win (it's better than the film you awarded him for the first time, it took him years to make this, no one else could have made it but him, it seems like a career win within the film's subject matter/genre itself).
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 24, 2019 15:43:51 GMT
I think The Irishman wins one Oscar: Best Supporting Actor. I think that's one of the few Oscars it won't win.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 15:47:44 GMT
I think The Irishman wins one Oscar: Best Supporting Actor. I think that's one of the few Oscars it won't win. I just don't see it as a major tech player when it comes to wins, and I think Scorsese is far more vulnerable than people seem to think he is.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 24, 2019 15:52:01 GMT
I think that's one of the few Oscars it won't win. I just don't see it as a major tech player when it comes to wins, and I think Scorsese is far more vulnerable than people seem to think he is. Imo Scorsese is the most safe bet. Safer than BP and script. On the other hand, Pitt is the clear front runner in BSA. For no real reason if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 16:07:38 GMT
I just don't see it as a major tech player when it comes to wins, and I think Scorsese is far more vulnerable than people seem to think he is. Imo Scorsese is the most safe bet. Safer than BP and script. On the other hand, Pitt is the clear front runner in BSA. For no real reason if you ask me. I don't think Pitt is a clear frontrunner. He's solidly in the top two right about now, but his film has an early release date and it needs a hard resurgence right around now in order to maintain profile. Pacino has a narrative: he's only won one Oscar, which many consider a kiss-off career win, and he's getting the best raves of his film career in over three decades, playing a historical character with many scene-stealing moments. And right now, I think The Irishman (despite my cool reception of it) has more winner equity than ...Hollywood, and I can easily see Tarantino's movie get frosted out completely in the end. I don't think Tarantino's beating Baumbach and I can see the Academy thinking this is the last time they can reward Pacino, whereas Pitt will clearly have more opportunities in the future. I don't think Scorsese's safe at all. He has a lot of respect and goodwill, but we've heard that before.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 24, 2019 16:15:22 GMT
Imo Scorsese is the most safe bet. Safer than BP and script. On the other hand, Pitt is the clear front runner in BSA. For no real reason if you ask me. I don't think Pitt is a clear frontrunner. He's solidly in the top two right about now, but his film has an early release date and it needs a hard resurgence right around now in order to maintain profile. Pacino has a narrative: he's only won one Oscar, which many consider a kiss-off career win, and he's getting the best raves of his film career in over three decades, playing a historical character with many scene-stealing moments. And right now, I think The Irishman (despite my cool reception of it) has more winner equity than ...Hollywood, and I can easily see Tarantino's movie get frosted out completely in the end. I don't think Tarantino's beating Baumbach and I can see the Academy thinking this is the last time they can reward Pacino, whereas Pitt will clearly have more opportunities in the future. I don't think Scorsese's safe at all. He has a lot of respect and goodwill, but we've heard that before. I agree on everything about BSA but there are two reasons I consider Pitt the front runner: A possible Pesci nod will split the votes between him and Pacino, and Pitt is supposedly due for an acting Oscar. Haven't yet seen Lighthouse, Beautiful Day and Two Popes but Pitt probably gives the worst perfoemance between Pacino, Hanks, Pesci, Dafoe and Hopkins... As for Marty, I believe he will be the winner of BD Oscar. I think no one of the other contenders has such a narrative in order to beat him.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 16:24:02 GMT
I don't think Pitt is a clear frontrunner. He's solidly in the top two right about now, but his film has an early release date and it needs a hard resurgence right around now in order to maintain profile. Pacino has a narrative: he's only won one Oscar, which many consider a kiss-off career win, and he's getting the best raves of his film career in over three decades, playing a historical character with many scene-stealing moments. And right now, I think The Irishman (despite my cool reception of it) has more winner equity than ...Hollywood, and I can easily see Tarantino's movie get frosted out completely in the end. I don't think Tarantino's beating Baumbach and I can see the Academy thinking this is the last time they can reward Pacino, whereas Pitt will clearly have more opportunities in the future. I don't think Scorsese's safe at all. He has a lot of respect and goodwill, but we've heard that before. I agree on everything about BSA but there are two reasons I consider Pitt the front runner: A possible Pesci nod will split the votes between him and Pacino, and Pitt is supposedly due for an acting Oscar. Haven't yet seen Lighthouse, Beautiful Day and Two Popes but Pitt probably gives the worst perfoemance between Pacino, Hanks, Pesci, Dafoe and Hopkins... As for Marty, I believe he will be the winner of BD Oscar. I think no one of the other contenders has such a narrative in order to beat him. I just don't think Pesci will be able to split too much support from Pacino. Once it comes time for winner voting, people will rally behind Pacino because he's clearly who Netflix is favoring, because Pesci will not campaign and Pacino will, and Pacino's stature in the industry is greater than Pesci's. It's not even a given that The Pesh will get nominated considering his general disdain for the circuit, but I am predicting he does based on pure passion. But I think once it comes time to vote for the winner, support will coalesce behind Pacino because he's louder, showier, and more what they typically go for in a winner than Pesci's quiet dominance. I don't think Pitt's got quite the same level of "overdue" factor as someone like Pacino, who legitimately could be making his final stab at a win, and I definitely don't think he's as undeniable as, say, Christoph Waltz in 2009. I also don't know if I agree about Scorsese having a "narrative." People thought he had a "narrative" in 2011 for Hugo because it was a big passion-project for him (more than The Irishman, which has always been De Niro's personal pet project more than Marty's), and he lost there. People thought he was going to get in for Silence because, again, big passion-project for him. He missed completely. He's well-respected and well-lauded, but his competition ain't exactly chopped liver, and they all have pros and cons just as he does. Scorsese could win, but this ain't gonna be a cakewalk. His Departed win is still relatively recent, and it might work against him.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 24, 2019 16:57:53 GMT
I agree on everything about BSA but there are two reasons I consider Pitt the front runner: A possible Pesci nod will split the votes between him and Pacino, and Pitt is supposedly due for an acting Oscar. Haven't yet seen Lighthouse, Beautiful Day and Two Popes but Pitt probably gives the worst perfoemance between Pacino, Hanks, Pesci, Dafoe and Hopkins... As for Marty, I believe he will be the winner of BD Oscar. I think no one of the other contenders has such a narrative in order to beat him. I just don't think Pesci will be able to split too much support from Pacino. Once it comes time for winner voting, people will rally behind Pacino because he's clearly who Netflix is favoring, because Pesci will not campaign and Pacino will, and Pacino's stature in the industry is greater than Pesci's. It's not even a given that The Pesh will get nominated considering his general disdain for the circuit, but I am predicting he does based on pure passion. But I think once it comes time to vote for the winner, support will coalesce behind Pacino because he's louder, showier, and more what they typically go for in a winner than Pesci's quiet dominance. I don't think Pitt's got quite the same level of "overdue" factor as someone like Pacino, who legitimately could be making his final stab at a win, and I definitely don't think he's as undeniable as, say, Christoph Waltz in 2009. I also don't know if I agree about Scorsese having a "narrative." People thought he had a "narrative" in 2011 for Hugo because it was a big passion-project for him (more than The Irishman, which has always been De Niro's personal pet project more than Marty's), and he lost there. People thought he was going to get in for Silence because, again, big passion-project for him. He missed completely. He's well-respected and well-lauded, but his competition ain't exactly chopped liver, and they all have pros and cons just as he does. Scorsese could win, but this ain't gonna be a cakewalk. His Departed win is still relatively recent, and it might work against him. I always thought his narrative was much better back in 2004 for Aviator. Tbh I was pretty sure he would finally get his Oscar then. Never thought of it for Hugo or Silence, especially having already won in 2006. And having another 0/2 (BD and BP) will be very harsh...
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Nov 24, 2019 17:38:14 GMT
I think The Irishman wins one Oscar: Best Supporting Actor. I actually thought the exact same thing when I got out of it. I loved it myself, but like I said in the BP thread it won't be the easiest watch and could easily be passed over in favor of films that aren't quite as depressing or quite as three and a half hours long, so I don't think its merit and scope automatically make it a guaranteed sweeper. I suppose I'd also predict it for Editing because I don't know what else is flashy enough to take it this year (our most likely tech marvel will probably suffer in this category just like Birdman did a couple years ago by virtue of being edited as a single extended take), but other than that I don't think it's really undeniable for anything. Scorsese has a solid narrative, but then again that's also been the case many times in the past and it hasn't panned out, and then there's also Mendes right there. I'm feeling Jojo Rabbit as a major threat for Adapted Screenplay lately, especially since its odds of winning Best Picture are probably much stronger than most here would like, and on top of that there's also Gerwig waiting in the wings fresh off of a Lady Bird shut-out with an adaptation that's been pretty well received so far judging by early reactions and which apparently does something bold with its source material by fiddling with its chronology and ending (I could be wrong on this one, of course). 1917 has to be the favorite for tech prizes like Cinematography, Score and Sound, which means The Irishman is unlikely to scoop up many below the line prizes either. So yes, I'm inclined to agree with Stephen here. Not saying that it can't win any of those categories, of course, just that it's by no means locked when there are so many more easily digestible pickings right there that fall right in line with what the average Academy member gravitates towards.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 19:49:11 GMT
I think The Irishman wins one Oscar: Best Supporting Actor. I actually thought the exact same thing when I got out of it. I loved it myself, but like I said in the BP thread it won't be the easiest watch and could easily be passed over in favor of films that aren't quite as depressing or quite as three and a half hours long, so I don't think its merit and scope automatically make it a guaranteed sweeper. I suppose I'd also predict it for Editing because I don't know what else is flashy enough to take it this year (our most likely tech marvel will probably suffer in this category just like Birdman did a couple years ago by virtue of being edited as a single extended take), but other than that I don't think it's really undeniable for anything. Scorsese has a solid narrative, but then again that's also been the case many times in the past and it hasn't panned out, and then there's also Mendes right there. I'm feeling Jojo Rabbit as a major threat for Adapted Screenplay lately, especially since its odds of winning Best Picture are probably much stronger than most here would like, and on top of that there's also Gerwig waiting in the wings fresh off of a Lady Bird shut-out with an adaptation that's been pretty well received so far judging by early reactions and which apparently does something bold with its source material by fiddling with its chronology and ending (I could be wrong on this one, of course). 1917 has to be the favorite for tech prizes like Cinematography, Score and Sound, which means The Irishman is unlikely to scoop up many below the line prizes either. So yes, I'm inclined to agree with Stephen here. Not saying that it can't win any of those categories, of course, just that it's by no means locked when there are so many more easily digestible pickings right there that fall right in line with what the average Academy member gravitates towards. Exactly. I think general voting audiences will find it a tough sit for almost four hours, and epics aren't exactly in fashion these days. I also don't know if the Academy is in the mood for a dark, cynical movie with a nihilistic bent this year. Besides, when has the Academy ever given a shit about "scope"? Editing is a possibility, but Thelma missed on what should've been a cakewalk nomination for a top-five contender in 2013. I think something snappier and shorter wins out here. Jojo Rabbit feels like a real dark horse for the big prize right now, and Adapted Screenplay is exactly where they can reward Waititi, who's been building quite the narrative/rep this year of his own. And yes, there's Gerwig as well. If Jojo wins in writing, if 1917 takes Cinematography, Score and both Sounds, and if something like Avengers takes Visual Effects, where does that leave The Irishman to consecrate an eventual Scorsese win? Supporting Actor?
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 1,050
|
Post by chris3 on Nov 24, 2019 20:56:03 GMT
I also don't know if I agree about Scorsese having a "narrative." People thought he had a "narrative" in 2011 for Hugo because it was a big passion-project for him (more than The Irishman, which has always been De Niro's personal pet project more than Marty's), and he lost there. People thought he was going to get in for Silence because, again, big passion-project for him. He missed completely. He's well-respected and well-lauded, but his competition ain't exactly chopped liver, and they all have pros and cons just as he does. Scorsese could win, but this ain't gonna be a cakewalk. His Departed win is still relatively recent, and it might work against him. Who do you think has the best chance of beating him in Best Director? I think Jojo Rabbit has a real shot at Picture and Screenplay, but not so much Director. I'd absolutely love a Bong Joon-Ho victory but I'm starting to think Parasite's spotlight on awards night might be relegated to its International Film win. Tarantino's movie came out too early and might be too divisive within the Academy. Or not, who knows. But I still can't see Tarantino winning over Scorsese. Baumbach in Director is not happening. NGNG predictions: Split win in BP/BD: Jojo Rabbit for Picture and Scorsese for Director. No other wins for The Irishman.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 24, 2019 21:10:08 GMT
Judging by this thread this board would kill their girlfriends/boyfriends the very first time someone pretty and dumb walks by and smiles. "When have they ever cared about scope?" Oh I dunno stephen - The English Patient, The Last Emperor, Godfather II, Schindler's List, Chariots of Fire, Ghandi, Titanic, 12 Years A Slave.... Come on.....it obviously matters. Jojo Rabbit is not a feel good film btw, it's rather a bad cinematic handjob that makes those in attendance feel smugly superior to Nazi's (congratulations!) - this is a message board movie - the people who didn't see it a festival or right away don't care at all. While I do love the leading Supporting Actor contender from The Irishman he is in no way (at all) a "surer" thing than Scorsese and Thelma.......don't just do something people, stand there for a second and think these through. Sometimes the obvious IS the sublime.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 21:10:29 GMT
I also don't know if I agree about Scorsese having a "narrative." People thought he had a "narrative" in 2011 for Hugo because it was a big passion-project for him (more than The Irishman, which has always been De Niro's personal pet project more than Marty's), and he lost there. People thought he was going to get in for Silence because, again, big passion-project for him. He missed completely. He's well-respected and well-lauded, but his competition ain't exactly chopped liver, and they all have pros and cons just as he does. Scorsese could win, but this ain't gonna be a cakewalk. His Departed win is still relatively recent, and it might work against him. Who do you think has the best chance of beating him in Best Director? I think Jojo Rabbit has a real shot at Picture and Screenplay, but not so much Director. I'd absolutely love a Bong Joon-Ho victory but I'm starting to think Parasite's spotlight on awards night might be relegated to its International Film win. Tarantino's movie came out too early and might be too divisive within the Academy. Or not, who knows. But I still can't see Tarantino winning over Scorsese. Baumbach in Director is not happening. NGNG predictions: Split win in BP/BD: Jojo Rabbit for Picture and Scorsese for Director. No other wins for The Irishman. Mendes has the possible technical achievement on his side. Bong has the critical favorite and his film is a stealth threat for Picture, and the glass ceiling was broken last year with an International Film finally winning an above-the-line category, and Parasite is making killer bank. Tarantino's in the mix as well, but I'm not predicting his film to perform well in the end. I just can't see Scorsese winning Director if the movie itself doesn't coup at least a couple other wins. We're at a time where Director matches up with technical achievements more than correlating with Best Picture.
|
|
|
Post by DanQuixote on Nov 24, 2019 21:17:54 GMT
Jojo wins Picture. Is that NGNG?
Jamie Foxx gets nominated for Just Mercy at the Globes and SAG.
Taron Egerton and Lupita Nyong’o perform very well with precursors (Globes, BFCA, SAG, BAFTA) but both will miss out in the end.
Scarlett’s gonna get double nominated, but she won’t win.
Bong wins Director.
Cats doesn’t get nominated for Best Original Song.
I think Sam Rockwell is gonna get nominated, but I’m not sure for what film yet.
Adam Sandler’s gonna win NYFCC. (Again, probably not THAT NGNG but everyone seems to think it’s between Driver and Banderas).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 23:20:21 GMT
Judging by this thread this board would kill their girlfriends/boyfriends the very first time someone pretty and dumb walks by and smiles. "When have they ever cared about scope?" Oh I dunno stephen - The English Patient, The Last Emperor, Godfather II, Schindler's List, Chariots of Fire, Ghandi, Titanic, 12 Years A Slave.... Come on.....it obviously matters. I think you confuse "scope" with "importance," but sure, okay. The English Patient and Titanic were sweeping romantic tales that appealed to a broad demographic, at a period when the Academy was opting for big studio period pictures over small indies. The Last Emperor is a bizarre outlier because it swept the year but had relatively weak competition; only one of its major competitors won anything above the line against it, because it wasn't competing in any acting categories (something that almost never happens for a BP winner). The Godfather: Part II is considered one of the greatest movies of all time and I am sure its awards haul was seen largely as a way to make up for the first film missing so many prizes to Cabaret. Chariots of Fire was the smaller film against the big sweeping epic of the year in Reds, so it doesn't really apply here. Schindler's List was the year Spielberg conquered Hollywood in every single facet; there was no way he was losing. And both Gandhi and 12 Years a Slave were socially important movies against sci-fi blockbusters, a genre that is hideously under-represented by the Academy. You can call it "scope" if you want, but it should also be noted that only one of your examples is within the last twenty years. You're letting your personal feelings on the movie cloud your judgment. This movie plays like gangbusters to audiences; it won TIFF's Audience Award (the most effective bellwether at gauging Best Picture nominations we have, really). It's the sort of movie that might indeed play to people who want to feel "superior" to Nazis, but in this current climate, that might be something they're looking for. A way to excoriate that regime as being ridiculous and not worth fearing. I think that makes it more of a threat than something dark, cynical, brooding, and nearly four hours long. Even if I adored The Irishman, it's definitely not an easy watch, and you have to think about the mindset of an average Academy voter, for better or for worse.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 24, 2019 23:59:08 GMT
You can call it "scope" if you want, but it should also be noted that only one of your examples is within the last twenty years. You're letting your personal feelings on the movie cloud your judgment. This movie plays like gangbusters to audiences The difference is - scope hasn't been in vogue much in the last 20 years - it's the exception this year that a major director made a film with such scope and historical importance too both in how it was made and subject matter............to go against that runs the risk of rewarding a "small time" movie this year. Now, I'm perfectly willing to buy 1917 as a threat for BP and Parasite in director, but that's not what Jojo Rabbit is - I have seen 5 movies in the last 2 weeks at a theater showing JoJo and the crowds for it have been small for 2 weeks now and it isn't really playing like gangbusters to crowds that don't show up.........it's a message board movie imo, not a true crowd pleaser imo. It only pleased the crowds in a front loaded way and sure maybe that will change after nods come out but I'll need to be convinced. Also, very rarely does the Academy pick a flat out bad movie as BP either - and when they do, it's a bad movie by a big director (Del Toro)....... and that's not who Waititi is. Some of the facts you guys are listing are misleading too - like linking tech wins to BP and anticipating a BP/BD split. Of the 9 years this decade Picture-Director have matched 4 of those years, I mean it's not that minor or much of a stretch to think it happens again this year and if Pacino were to win (a big "if") it would be because the picture dragged him over the line, not vice versa it seems to me. Like I said, I don't doubt 1917 as a threat at all - though again it's clearly on (very) shaky ground in likelihood to get an Editing/Screenplay/or any Acting nods - that's a huge obstacle to overcome to actually win BP.......but with Jojo well I don't see it at all ......I just think everyone is being blinded by trying too hard to find something shiny and is stretching it.
|
|
jakob
Full Member
Posts: 827
Likes: 698
|
Post by jakob on Nov 25, 2019 3:04:58 GMT
Parasite wins Original Screenplay, Marriage Story just takes home Best Supporting Actress.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Nov 25, 2019 3:15:39 GMT
At the risk of repeating myself: a major director made a film with such scope and historical importance too both in how it was made and subject matter............ Academy members don't always think the way we do because the vast majority of them don't care about the trends and history of their own awards ceremony. I don't see enough of them thinking "I cannot vote for X because it's too small time compared to the ambition of Y" or "but Waititi isn't A-list enough"; they or their family members or their house workers or whoever they give their ballots to will vote for whatever they happen to like best, and when it comes to Best Picture historical importance doesn't matter anywhere near as much as political messaging these days. I'd very much be in favor of The Irishman winning, but present-day Academy cares fuck all about scope and importance. Odd that you'd say Jojo Rabbit is a message board/Letterboxd movie, because to me it feels very much like the opposite: it's the 210-minute drama about obsolescence and regret that fits that bill, not a TIFF-winning audience-friendly comedy about how Nazis are bad.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Nov 25, 2019 5:39:59 GMT
I have seen 5 movies in the last 2 weeks at a theater showing JoJo and the crowds for it have been small for 2 weeks now and it isn't really playing like gangbusters to crowds that don't show up.........it's a message board movie imo, not a true crowd pleaser imo. Is that not also stretching it to make a point? Using my experiences for an example, as a frequented of local theme parks, I’ve never experienced overloaded garbage cans, but that is a common complaint I’m hearing these days, and they are totally valid. Yes, to our personal experiences, these things seem trivial and minor, but they’re part of a much broader context. Just because things don’t play a certain way for one person, doesn’t make that point universal. But for my own personal reference, when I saw Jojo Rabbit, the screening was packed (I had to sit at an almost uncomfortable angle), and the response afterwards was pretty rapturous. And from what I’m hearing, though crowds have incrementally dwindled, it’s still playing to some strong showings. It absolutely has the hallmarks of a crowd pleaser. They just did. And if THAT hadn’t won, Bohemian fucking Rhapsody could very well have.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 25, 2019 9:50:23 GMT
Academy members don't always think the way we do because the vast majority of them don't care about the trends and history of their own awards ceremony. I don't see enough of them thinking "I cannot vote for X because it's too small time compared to the ambition of Y" or "but Waititi isn't A-list enough"; they or their family members or their house workers or whoever they give their ballots to will vote for whatever they happen to like best, and when it comes to Best Picture historical importance doesn't matter anywhere near as much as political messaging these days. I'd very much be in favor of The Irishman winning, but present-day Academy cares fuck all about scope and importance. Odd that you'd say Jojo Rabbit is a message board/Letterboxd movie, because to me it feels very much like the opposite: it's the 210-minute drama about obsolescence and regret that fits that bill, not a TIFF-winning audience-friendly comedy about how Nazis are bad. I personally don't see a deeper connection between Roma (foreign)/Green Book (pretty good actually) and Irishman (not foreign)/Jojo (pretty bad actually) as an equivalent argument at all this year for the reasons I listed. But each year is its own specific set of circumstances which I guess is why a thread called NGNG is inherently so exciting .............I do certainly see why other films could take down the Irishman of course, but maybe just to be safe and cut down on therapist bills I should prepare myself for the horror of Waititi leaping through the air on Oscar night for the big prize. Shudder.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Nov 25, 2019 10:18:46 GMT
Not related to my NGNG prediction, but I don't think it'll be simply a Jojo Rabbit vs The Irishman race for BP. They might end up the frontrunners, but I expect it to be a fractured race like 2017 (in which TSOW and TBOEM were the frontrunners, but Get Out and Lady Bird were strong threats as well due to the strenght of their screenplays) and 2015 (a Spotlight vs The Big Short vs The Revenant vs Mad Max full-blown four-horse race)
Back to the topic, my NGNG prediction is that Elisabeth Moss will win the Spirit (over Zellweger and Woodard), the Gotham, NYFCC and be the most prominent "critics' choice" and go all the way into filling the #5 BA spot at the Oscars, over Erivo, Woodard, Awkwafina and Nyong'o (and the internet might lose their shit over it).
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Nov 25, 2019 15:42:58 GMT
I personally don't see a deeper connection between Roma (foreign)/Green Book (pretty good actually) and Irishman (not foreign)/Jojo (pretty bad actually) as an equivalent argument at all this year for the reasons I listed. "Pretty good" and "pretty bad" are entirely subjective and shouldn't factor into this conversation at all, though. Objectively speaking, the parallels between the two sets of films are very clear, so to say that last season's outcome can't possibly be reprised this time because one slice of anti-racism crowdplease is bad and the other good is, like Stephen said, allowing personal feelings to cloud the assessment of the race. You've spent the better part of two years ridiculing the Academy for choosing the bad, infantilizing fish-fucking movie with the obvious message over what you see as a towering 10/10 portrait of present-day America, so the suggestion that the same thing might happen again this year shouldn't feel so far-fetched. Again, while I haven't seen Jojo Rabbit yet, I adored The Irishman and would be immensely glad to see it win, but as last year proved beyond any doubt, no awards group should ever be counted on to look at what we consider to be obviously great and what we consider to be obviously terrible and then make the right choice between the two. Not related to my NGNG prediction, but I don't think it'll be simply a Jojo Rabbit vs The Irishman race for BP. They might end up the frontrunners, but I expect it to be a fractured race like 2017 (in which TSOW and TBOEM were the frontrunners, but Get Out and Lady Bird were strong threats as well due to the strenght of their screenplays) and 2015 (a Spotlight vs The Big Short vs The Revenant vs Mad Max full-blown four-horse race) I agree, actually. There's about 4, maybe 5 films right now with reasonably realistic shots at the win, and then a couple more that are a full tier below them but which I wouldn't be all that surprised to see surge as the months go on. Nothing is locked this far out.
|
|