criterionforum.org

Not that surprised at Everything Everywhere not making visual effects, the Q&A revealed a lot of this was done on a shoe string budget and there were way more practical effects that you’d think. Production design and costumes make more sense for praise, unless I don’t understand the category. The real curio is RRR’s omission - everyone loves this mediocre movie, and the visual effects are the best thing about it

brundlefly wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:37 am

hearthesilence wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:23 am JFC, No Bears didn't make the cut for foreign language film. Not a surprise, despite great reviews, I get the feeling few are actually watching it. That doesn't bode well for Janus's campaign to secure a (justifiably deserved) Best Director nomination.

Unless they finally changed the rules, it would not be eligible for Best International Film unless Iran submitted it. Iran officially submitted Houman Seyyedi's World War III this year. Hence the push for the director nod.

Ahhhh, of course, thanks brundlefly. Obviously would've been quite the surprise had it been submitted...

therewillbeblus wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:43 am Not that surprised at Everything Everywhere not making visual effects, the Q&A revealed a lot of this was done on a shoe string budget and there were way more practical effects that you’d think.

Practical effects are still visual effects, and I'd think recognizing a film that looks as good as that one does with its limited resources would be more appropriate than throwing a nod to the latest Fantastic Beasts or Jurassic World sequels, which had exponentially larger effects budgets but less memorable results.

GoldDerby’s experts were certain of its nomination— it was ranked 3 overall in their odds, out of all films. This is the biggest omission of the shortlist for sure

Also keep in mind smaller films sometimes upset in this category— Babe beating Apollo 13, Ex Machina

Fair points, and Top Gun: Maverick will probably win for similar reasons - its effects were mostly practical with pilots flying, but more impressive for it

I mean I personally wasn't expecting EEAAO to get nominated for Visual Effects,: looking at the Shortlist finalists in previous years (Here's the link) I can hardly think of any analagous films outside of the 2020 and Ex Machina which was at least Sci-Fi.

The previous two years have taught me that with an absence of massive blockbusters the VFX branch will still vote for the most extravagent visuals over independent films, and then that they'll vote for the biggest hits over the critical favourites.

therewillbeblus wrote: Thu Dec 22, 2022 3:44 pm Fair points, and Top Gun: Maverick will probably win for similar reasons - its effects were mostly practical with pilots flying, but more impressive for it

I can’t imagine Avatar not winning Visual Effects. I think Top Gun might win Cinematography unless Avatar overtakes it there too (the first one won). Top Gun is also very competitive in Editing and maybe a lock to win Sound

Surprised not to see Armageddon Time or Nope on his list

We're about 2.5 weeks out from Oscar nominations being announced, and just a few days from voting by Academy members, so the time seems ripe for a temperature check on forum interest in another predictions competition:

1.) Please let me know in this thread or via PM if you'd be interested in participating this year — I'd like at least a half-dozen participants to make things interesting, but the more the merrier, as always!

2.) If you're interested, how did you feel about combining the nominations/winners scoring last year? Do we want to continue with that system (and the variable scoring for nominations, described below)?

DarkImbecile wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 1:06 am NOMINATIONS:
5 POINTS: Picture, Director, Acting, Screenplay

3 POINTS: International Feature, Cinematography, Animated Feature, Documentary Feature, Editing, Sound, Costume, Makeup/Hair, Score, Production Design, Visual Effects

1 POINT: Song, Animated Short, Documentary Short, Live Action Short

WINNERS:
5 POINTS EACH

3.) I was also thinking another scoring wrinkle might be fun, like rewarding those with left-field picks with bonus scoring for upsets and surprises to incentivize people to stray from Gold Derby-culled chalk predictions. Thoughts?

4.) I'm willing to throw in a $10 Criterion store gift code for the winner, and any contributions from other participants to sweeten the pot and ramp up the viciousness of the competition would be welcome as well.

If I can get at least five additional players expressing interest by the week of the nominations (which are coming January 24th), I'll set up the score tracking sheet.

DarkImbecile wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 2:24 am 4.) I'm willing to throw in a $10 Criterion store gift code for the winner, and any contributions from other participants to sweeten the pot and ramp up the viciousness of the competition would be welcome as well.

Already up to $35, thanks to Never Cursed!

I’m interested in participating under any conditions. I like the idea of rewarding left field picks but I’m not sure how that would be decided unless using Goldderby as a metric. I’m not sure what you were thinking, but I could see a system where anything under X odds, or Y number predicting the nom (and if so, specifying just experts or the total number), or outside of the top [choose number above five for all categories except a higher one for BP] on Goldderby, by Z date, with close monitoring around the date since they fluctuate. I imagine most people would be choosing a left field pick between the 6-10 odds since they rarely if ever come in from beyond that

I was thinking rather than base it off those (regularly fluctuating) odds, we could just double the points for any pick that appears on fewer than 10-20% of submitted lists, depending on how many participants we have.

Or say each pick is worth X points (with X perhaps being equal to the number of participants) but those points get split evenly between everyone that picks it

I think if we adopt swo's version, that forces him to participate, right?

Crap

I can't access the Criterion store so I will be participating for the fun of it.

I’ll definitely participate, and I’m fine with whichever scoring method is decided upon. I’m not sure about rewarding extra points for left-field picks, but only because it might create some ambiguity regarding what qualifies as left-field (for instance, would it just be any nominee that wasn’t present at any other major award shows?).

I would also participate under whatever rules y’all decide

After last year, one of the rules is definitely going to be “Pavel starts with a ten-point deficit”

National Society of Film Critics awards:

Spoiler

Best picture: Tár
Runners-up: Aftersun
No Bears

Best director: Charlotte Wells, Aftersun
Runners-up: Park Chan-wook, Decision to Leave
Jafar Panahi, No Bears

Best actor: Colin Farrell, After Yang and The Banshees of Inisherin
Runners-up: Paul Mescal, Aftersun
Bill Nighy, Living

Best actress: Cate Blanchett, Tár
Runners-up: Michelle Yeoh, Everything Everywhere All at Once
Tilda Swinton, The Eternal Daughter, and Michelle Williams, The Fabelmans

Best supporting actor: Ke Huy Quan, Everything Everywhere All at Once
Runners-up: Brian Tyree Henry, Causeway
Barry Keoghan, The Banshees of Inisherin

Best supporting actress: Kerry Condon, The Banshees of Inisherin
Runners-up: Nina Hoss, Tár
Dolly de Leon, Triangle of Sadness

Best screenplay: Todd Field, Tár
Runners-up: Martin McDonagh, The Banshees of Inisherin
James Gray, Armageddon Time

Best cinematography: Michał Dymek, EO
Runners-up: Hoyte van Hoytema, Nope
Kim Ji-yong, Decision to Leave

Best film not in the English language: EO
Runners-up: No Bears
Decision to Leave

Best nonfiction film: All the Beauty and the Bloodshed
Runners-up: Descendant
All That Breathes

David Ehrlich's annual Top 25 Films Countdown video, paired with a fundraiser for food support for NYC families in need

Sure, I'll humiliate myself again this year. Why not?

OK, but will you also play the Oscar game with us?

What the heck, I'll play again.