Awards Season 2009

[J Adams]

Avatar is looking more likely to win BP/BD. I think unanimous crix Hurt Locker support works against it with Oscar.

[perkizitore]

Not really, remember Crash? In a poor year, the critics favorite has a big chance of winning!

[J Adams]

Understood. But didn't Crash have a decent run at the B.O. before it won (maybe not...I'm too lazy to check). Hurt's world gross is $16 million. It's just a crix film, more so than Crash. Avatar is now the second highest grossing film ever. I don't see how Oscar can ignore that. Maybe they split BP and BD between the two.

[tavernier]

If you're right about Cameron winning (again!!), it would prove yet again that the Oscars are a complete joke and should never be taken as any kind of barometer of artistic excellence.

[J Adams]

I think I'd predict a BP for Avatar and BD for the "ex". Hurt may have more trouble emerging out of a pack of 10 than a pack of 5. At the rate it's going, Avatar might hit $1.5B world gross. Plus Hollywood is on a 3D kick, so a win is a good promo for 3D.

[tavernier]

$1.5 billion is a better promo for 3D than a measly statuette.

[xavier110]

Kathryn Bigelow is going to win Best Director easily. Don't worry.

[Highway 61]

Kathryn Bigelow is going to win Best Director easily. Don't worry.

I don't see it happening. They're going to want to save the first female Best Director for a name that the public will recognize, a name that a narrative can be crafted around weeks in advance of the ceremony. If Sofia Coppola had directed The Hurt Locker, she'd have it all tied up; they'd probably even have her father reading the envelope.

At this point, I'm thinking Tarantino for director, and Avatar for picture.

[reno dakota]

They're going to want to save the first female Best Director for a name that the public will recognize, a name that a narrative can be crafted around weeks in advance of the ceremony.

You make it sound as though the winners are decided by committee.

[Highway 61]

You make it sound as though the winners are decided by committee.

I admit that I make it sound like a conspiracy, which is silly. I'm just saying that in recent years the Academy has been unabashedly self-congradulatory about Hollywood's perceived liberalism. For instance, the social issues montage mentioned earlier in this thread, Clooney's truth-stretching acceptance speech, all the hoopla about going green the year Inconvenient Truth won, etc. I'm also thinking of the year that Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won, when they had Sidney Poitier there accepting an Honorary Oscar, which they normally reserve for industry legends without an Oscar. It all seemed very calculated to me, so I don't see them giving this year's director award to a name that mainstream audiences don't know when they could hold out for a name that will generate more interest in the first woman to win Best Director.

[reno dakota]

Again, you use the word "they" to reference the Academy, as if the members are all going to come together to "calculate" the desired result. Do you actually believe that most voters will have these concerns in mind when they mark their ballots? I think it is far more likely that they will have their favorites, their friends and the frontrunners in mind when they vote. At any rate, betting against the frontrunner--so boldly and so definitively--this early in the game seems foolish to me. Could we at least wait until Bigelow has been nominated before we rain on her parade?

[stereo]

After the overwhelming banality of Avatar, I'm still convinced Hurt Locker will win Best Pic.

[Jeff]

After the overwhelming banality of Avatar, I'm still convinced Hurt Locker will win Best Pic.

Banality is advantageous when competing for an Academy Award.

[tavernier]

After the overwhelming banality of Titanic, I'm still convinced L.A. Confidential will win Best Pic.

fixed

[Highway 61]

Again, you use the word "they" to reference the Academy, as if the members are all going to come together to "calculate" the desired result. Do you actually believe that most voters will have these concerns in mind when they mark their ballots? I think it is far more likely that they will have their favorites, their friends and the frontrunners in mind when they vote. At any rate, betting against the frontrunner--so boldly and so definitively--this early in the game seems foolish to me. Could we at least wait until Bigelow has been nominated before we rain on her parade?

I'm not an insider, but from the tidbits of Oscar gossip I read each year, yes, I do believe that it's more or less calculated, with the studios choosing which films to push and certain parties having Oscar marketing campaigns written into their contracts before a movie even begins shooting.

That said, I'm sorry that I came off as raining on Bigelow's parade. I want her to win. I'm just so accustomed to seeing the films and directors that I admire come away empty handed every year.

[mfunk9786]

At least Titanic was near-universally hailed by US critics. Avatar has gotten a 'meh' from a lot of folks. I really find it hard to believe that it has the steam to take any Oscars outside of technicals.

[reno dakota]

I'm just so accustomed to seeing the films and directors that I admire come away empty handed every year.

I certainly understand this. In Bigelow's case, though, I don't think we have much to worry about . . . yet. She is the clear frontrunner among the critics and so far The Hurt Locker is doing well with the guilds. Now, if Bigelow loses the DGA, or if we begin to hear rumblings of a backlash against her or the film, then we should worry. Otherwise, she will be in good position for the win. The last frontrunner of this magnitude to fail to win Best Director was Curtis Hanson for L.A. Confidential, but Cameron did win the DGA that year.

[Dr Amicus]

A point to remember also is that Titanic, in addition to being visually spectacular, was also a period romance - a genre that is a lot more "respectable" (at least in Academy terms) than the SF of Avatar. Yes, the final LOTR won, but that had had favourable reviews and was based on a classic novel.

Also, I don't see a lot of love for the acting in Avatar - Titanic had 2 acting nominations (and Gloria Stuart was probably the favourite going in), and Leo was a fairly controversial omission. Although I was hit by a For Your Consideration pop-up for Zoe Saldana on Variety.com this morning, I can't see this actually happening. Remember that actors are the largest single part of the Academy - again, back to LOTR which had a LOT of big meaty roles for actors (if anything, it was surprising that it only had 1 nomination over 3 films). Compare this to Hurt Locker, where Renner is a strong candidate for Best Actor and there are significant supporting roles for Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes (unlikely nominees probably, but big names nonetheless).

One significant point in Avatar's favour (important note - I haven't seen it yet) is its subtext - if it's as obvious as everyone says, and knowing Cameron's earlier films I can believe it, it may be seen as more than a mere SF film and thus "important". However, a possible backlash against its seeming anti-imperialism / Americanism may hurt it.

So far, I have to say, I think this looks like the most open Oscars in recent years - I think all the films with directors nominated by the DGA have a shot (maybe Precious least, but still...). An early prediction would be Bigelow for best director and Up in the Air for film, but I'm certainly not putting any money on it.

Now, Jeff Bridges for best Actor - now that's a bet I'm willing to take.

[J Adams]

I think there is an element of "What's Best for Hollywood" in the voting. So, yes, there is a conspiratorial aspect.

Look at this horrific chart: Oscar B.O.

In the last 10 years only two films that won Best Pic grossed less than $100 million in the U.S. And they each grossed more than $50 million. In the last 30 years, EVERY BP grossed at least $40 million.

Every year people complain "No one has heard of the Oscar nominees!!!". You got that when "No Country" won.

Bigelow has an advantage for Best Director because she is a woman. I'm just saying I can't see her getting BOTH BP and BD. And Quentin might get BD because Basterds did so well. Unlike the acting awards, I think B.O. is a definite factor in BP and BD.

[Matt]

Look at this horrific chart: Oscar B.O.

In the last 10 years only two films that won Best Pic grossed less than $100 million in the U.S. And they each grossed more than $50 million. In the last 30 years, EVERY BP grossed at least $40 million.

But that chart presents you with a chicken-and-egg conundrum: when did those pictures gross that money, before or after winning the Oscar? Does a picture gross $40 million because it won Best Picture, or does a picture win because it grossed $40 million?

[stereo]

After the overwhelming banality of Titanic, I'm still convinced L.A. Confidential will win Best Pic.

fixed

I feel used; like some empty avatar on a sinking ship.

[eljacko]

But that chart presents you with a chicken-and-egg conundrum: when did those pictures gross that money, before or after winning the Oscar? Does a picture gross $40 million because it won Best Picture, or does a picture win because it grossed $40 million?

If you click on the year next to each film, it will direct you to a page breaking down how much each film grossed before nominations, before the ceremony, and afterwards. Only Slumdog Millionaire grossed more post-nomination than before.

[tenia]

I think there is an element of "What's Best for Hollywood" in the voting. So, yes, there is a conspiratorial aspect.

Look at this horrific chart: Oscar B.O.

In the last 10 years only two films that won Best Pic grossed less than $100 million in the U.S. And they each grossed more than $50 million. In the last 30 years, EVERY BP grossed at least $40 million.

Every year people complain "No one has heard of the Oscar nominees!!!". You got that when "No Country" won.

What's really horrific are when you look at the numbers of something like Crash compared to There Will Be Blood.

No one has heard of the Oscar nonimees but weirdly, most of the time, 3 out of 5 are amongst the top 10 of the year in specialized forums or critics.

I don't think at all that BO is a factor. The movie, the director is the factor. When Basterds are there, Tarantino will have something cause the movie itself is widly considered as his best movie since so long. That's it. You don't have to look somewhere else.

But anyway, if public success, critic success, quality and Oscars were all pointing to the same movies, it would be known.

[xavier110]

In Bigelow's case, though, I don't think we have much to worry about . . . yet. She is the clear frontrunner among the critics and so far The Hurt Locker is doing well with the guilds.

Exactly.

There will be a movement to acknowledge the first female director with an excellent chance at winning. What also helps is that The Hurt Locker is a war film and will be well-received by all branches of the Academy (acting, directing, writing, editing, DP's, sound people, etc.). It's likely to do very well for a film of its size. Plus, James Cameron has already won, and the other three nominees, whoever they will be, are not going to affect the race. Tarantino will be acknowledged in the original screenplay category; Reitman in adapted; Daniels can enjoy the ride.

[domino harvey]

Yeah, Best Picture could go a lot of different ways, but I'd say the Best Director is a lock