WWTBAM Bored

-- The Revenant is probably the favorite for best picture now with its 12 nominations including a few surprises. It would easily have been 13 but for a bit of a snafu regarding the score. Because the movie used some material from other composers that were incorporated into the main score, Ryiuchi Sakamoto was ineligible. A movie can use material from other composers as long as it's distinguishable from the main score (which happens whenever they put a song into a movie montage), but not if it becomes an integral part of the score. My guess is that Ennio Morricone will get a career Oscar here.

-- Leonardo diCaprio is the closest thing to money in the bank here. It's not a good year for Best Actor nominees.

--It's good to see Mark Ruffalo and Tom Hardy get nominations. Realistically, just about the entire cast of Spotlight could have been nominated, but Ruffalo had the advantage of having the one showy scene in which he has a temper tantrum. I was disappointed that Michael Shannon and Steve Carell did not get nominated. Carell is better than Bale and better than he was last year when he did get nominated. It's between Stallone (sentiment) and Mark Rylance (quality) for the Oscar.

--Charlotte Rampling was a surprise in another career nomination. Her film hasn't played in Atlanta yet but she's gotten excellent reviews. Brie Larson is the favorite.

--The biggest snub was Ridley Scott not getting a nomination for director. A lot of people thought he might well win the Oscar, but somehow Lenny Abrahamson got the last nomination. If Mad Max does well in the early categories in which it's up against The Revenant, I wouldn't be surprised to see George Miller win.

Someone posted a statistic that I thought was interesting.

Although The Revenant got 12 Oscar nominations and Mad Max got 10, both including Best Picture and Best Director, neither picture was nominated for Best Screenplay. In the history of the Oscars, only three films won the Best Picture without getting a screenplay nomination: Hamlet, The Sound of Music, and Titanic. I have it on pretty good authority that Hamlet had a very good script, nomination or not, so that really means two such winners in 80 years.

silverscreenselect wrote:Someone posted a statistic that I thought was interesting.

Although The Revenant got 12 Oscar nominations and Mad Max got 10, both including Best Picture and Best Director, neither picture was nominated for Best Screenplay. In the history of the Oscars, only three films won the Best Picture without getting a screenplay nomination: Hamlet, The Sound of Music, and Titanic. I have it on pretty good authority that Hamlet had a very good script, nomination or not, so that really means two such winners in 80 years.

That begs the question, and I don't know such things (and they can be fluid). I presume the "Best Screenplay" means "Best Original Screenplay," which would be why Hamlet wouldn't garner a nomination. Or maybe it's because the author was dead.

Assuming the former, would The Sound of Music not qualify since it was originally a Broadway musical (albeit with extensive modifications for the screen)? Or am I going under false presumptions?

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Someone posted a statistic that I thought was interesting.

Although The Revenant got 12 Oscar nominations and Mad Max got 10, both including Best Picture and Best Director, neither picture was nominated for Best Screenplay. In the history of the Oscars, only three films won the Best Picture without getting a screenplay nomination: Hamlet, The Sound of Music, and Titanic. I have it on pretty good authority that Hamlet had a very good script, nomination or not, so that really means two such winners in 80 years.

That begs the question, and I don't know such things (and they can be fluid). I presume the "Best Screenplay" means "Best Original Screenplay," which would be why Hamlet wouldn't garner a nomination. Or maybe it's because the author was dead.

Assuming the former, would The Sound of Music not qualify since it was originally a Broadway musical (albeit with extensive modifications for the screen)? Or am I going under false presumptions?

There are two screenplay categories every year, Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay (before 1940, there was only one screenplay category). Making things more confusing is the fact that until 1957, there was a third screenwriting category, Best Screen Story, also for original screenplays, so from 1940 to 1957 there were actually 10 films nominated most years for original screenplays. Both of Dalton Trumbo's Oscars, for Roman Holiday and The Brave One, came in this category, as did the only other Oscar that The Greatest Show on Earth won besides Best Picture (fewest Oscars by a Best Picture winner). I'm not sure what the difference between Best Screen Story and Best Original Screenplay was.

Obviously, Hamlet was based on the play, and Laurence Olivier edited it down by omitting about half the dialogue. He took no screenwriting credit, which may be why there was no nomination because there was no one technically to nominate. At the time, some critics felt he actually cut away too much of the original play. Ironically, Kenneth Branagh did get a nomination for his 1996 unabridged version of Hamlet. In his defense, he obviously expanded on Shakespeare's minimal stage directions so he obviously contributed to the final filmed product.

The test for Best Original Screenplay is whether it's based on material that previously appeared in another medium (including another movie). This year, Bridge of Spies, Spotlight, and Straight Outta Compton were all based on real events and people but not on any particular source, so they received Best Original Screenplay nominations.

silverscreenselect wrote: It's between Stallone (sentiment) and Mark Rylance (quality) for the Oscar.

I think it's a mite bit disingenuous to dismiss a possible Stallone win as pure sentiment.

Stallone does some real fine work in Creed. At the hospital, when he goes into the gym after that, the dance.

All excellent moments that match up with anyone this year. If he wins, it is a worthy choice. It's not Forrest Gump over Shawshank Redemption, for heaven's sake. or Crash. Or Roberto Begnini.

I wish the kid in Room had been nominated and Idris Elba. Those two, plus Stallone, Rylance and Hardy would have been my picks.

I thought Ruffalo was fantastic, but the whole cast was, so I am not sure making him representative of the entire cast is entirely fair.

I am kinda the same way on McAdams' nomination - loved her but had Mya Taylor of Tangerine replaced her, i wouldn't have been a bit disappointed.

mellytu74 wrote:Stallone does some real fine work in Creed. At the hospital, when he goes into the gym after that, the dance.

I haven't seen Idris Elba's performance (or Tangerine) so I can't judge them. However, I think Stallone is getting too much credit for a merely good performance and one that is primarily due to (1) extreme familiarity with the character and (2) a director who is actually directing him instead of letting Stallone mug for the camera which is most of what he's done for the last 20 years or more.

My own personal pick for the Stallone slot would have been Michael Shannon. His performance in 99 Homes is one of those that stays with you long after the movie (he did get Golden Globe and SAG nominations for the role).

mellytu74 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: It's between Stallone (sentiment) and Mark Rylance (quality) for the Oscar.

I think it's a mite bit disingenuous to dismiss a possible Stallone win as pure sentiment.

Stallone does some real fine work in Creed. At the hospital, when he goes into the gym after that, the dance.

All excellent moments that match up with anyone this year. If he wins, it is a worthy choice. It's not Forrest Gump over Shawshank Redemption, for heaven's sake. or Crash. Or Roberto Begnini.

I would have said Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction. --Bob

I've been a fan of Jennifer Jason Leigh since way back in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and I am surprised that she hasn't been nominated for an Oscar before now. I'm hoping she becomes a sentimental favorite like you think Stallone might. Of course, I haven't seen any of the other performances in this category, so I'm basing that on my own prejudices.

silverscreenselect wrote:

mellytu74 wrote:Stallone does some real fine work in Creed. At the hospital, when he goes into the gym after that, the dance.

I haven't seen Idris Elba's performance (or Tangerine) so I can't judge them. However, I think Stallone is getting too much credit for a merely good performance and one that is primarily due to (1) extreme familiarity with the character and (2) a director who is actually directing him instead of letting Stallone mug for the camera which is most of what he's done for the last 20 years or more.

My own personal pick for the Stallone slot would have been Michael Shannon. His performance in 99 Homes is one of those that stays with you long after the movie (he did get Golden Globe and SAG nominations for the role).

Did not see Shannon's performance (although he has always been a highlight in everything I've ever seen him in - Revolutionary Road and Boardwalk Empire, certainly but especially The Woodsman) so I can't comment but subbing him for the Room kid would be OK.- since we are talking mythical nominations.

I obviously thought more of Stallone's performance than you did.

danielh41 wrote:I've been a fan of Jennifer Jason Leigh since way back in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and I am surprised that she hasn't been nominated for an Oscar before now. I'm hoping she becomes a sentimental favorite like you think Stallone might. Of course, I haven't seen any of the other performances in this category, so I'm basing that on my own prejudices.

I haven't seen it so I so I can't judge it but I've always thought she is an interesting actress. I am one of seven or eight people on this planet who like Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle.

SSS in the Revenant Thread>>>
) DiCaprio is good in the movie, but it's not his best work. However, this is the same situation Al Pacino was in when he won the Oscar. Everyone feels it's DiCaprio's turn and no one else had a blow-the-doors off performance that would dazzle the viewers.<<<<

What is the movie/role where he maybe should have won for before? Or is it mainly because of his body of work?

Given my tastes, you will not be surprised that I love him in Blood Diamond-A Wilbur Smith character come to life. My absolute favorite death scene in any movie. Whenever I need cheering up, I like to watch that scene.

silverscreenselect wrote:
There are two screenplay categories every year, Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay (before 1940, there was only one screenplay category). Making things more confusing is the fact that until 1957, there was a third screenwriting category, Best Screen Story, also for original screenplays, so from 1940 to 1957 there were actually 10 films nominated most years for original screenplays. Both of Dalton Trumbo's Oscars, for Roman Holiday and The Brave One, came in this category, as did the only other Oscar that The Greatest Show on Earth won besides Best Picture (fewest Oscars by a Best Picture winner). I'm not sure what the difference between Best Screen Story and Best Original Screenplay was.

Obviously, Hamlet was based on the play, and Laurence Olivier edited it down by omitting about half the dialogue. He took no screenwriting credit, which may be why there was no nomination because there was no one technically to nominate. At the time, some critics felt he actually cut away too much of the original play. Ironically, Kenneth Branagh did get a nomination for his 1996 unabridged version of Hamlet. In his defense, he obviously expanded on Shakespeare's minimal stage directions so he obviously contributed to the final filmed product.

The test for Best Original Screenplay is whether it's based on material that previously appeared in another medium (including another movie). This year, Bridge of Spies, Spotlight, and Straight Outta Compton were all based on real events and people but not on any particular source, so they received Best Original Screenplay nominations.

If I"m reading Wikipedia correctly, Best Screen Story was not exclusively for an original screenplay, but for the story that inspired a screenplay, original or not. For instance, Lifeboat was nominated in 1944, and John Steinbeck, who wrote the story, was the nominee, but the screenplay was by Jo Swerling. Similarly, 1954's Rebel without a Cause was a nomination for Nicholas Ray, who wrote the story, but the screenplay was by Stewart Stern and Irving Shulman.

A couple of sites have some information about the screenplay/screen story awards. From Filmsite.org:

in 1940, the Academy started a new category - Best Original Screenplay, in addition to the other two categories: Best Original Story and Best Screenplay (adaptation). Best Original Story was intended to give credit to the authors of performance works (not novels) that films were based on. Therefore, oftentimes, the source and its adaptation would earn nominations - and Oscars.

(Besides The Story of Louis Pasteur (1936) with more than one writing Oscar, Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941) was the first to win two writing Oscars, followed by Going My Way (1944) and Miracle on 34th Street (1947). But in these other three cases, the script authors were different people from the writers credited with the screenplay.)

in 1957, the modern division of the award into "original" and "adapted" screenplays was finally implemented - with only two renamed categories: Best Screenplay - Based on Material From Another Medium (Adapted Screenplay) and Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (Original Screenplay); the category of Best Motion Picture Story was discarded by being merged into the other categories

Here's the Writers Guild rules for who gets a credit for Story or Screen Story:

The term "writer" is defined in the Minimum Basic Agreement. In general, the term "writer" means a person employed by a Company to write literary material or a person from whom a Company purchased literary material who at the time of purchase was a "professional writer," as defined in the Minimum Basic Agreement.

The term "story" means all writing covered by the provisions of the Minimum Basic Agreement representing a contribution "distinct from screenplay and consisting of basic narrative, idea, theme or outline indicating character development and action."

It is appropriate to award a "Story by" credit when: 1) the story was written under employment under Guild jurisdiction; 2) the story was purchased by a signatory company from a professional writer, as defined in the Minimum Basic Agreement; or 3) when the screenplay is based upon a sequel story written under the Guild's jurisdiction. If the story is based upon source material of a story nature, see "screen story" below.

Credit for story authorship in the form "Screen Story by" is appropriate when the screenplay is based upon source material and a story, as those terms are defined above, and the story is substantially new or different from the source material.

A screenplay consists of individual scenes and full dialogue, together with such prior treatment, basic adaptation, continuity, scenario and dialogue as shall be used in, and represent substantial contributions to the final script.

A "Screenplay by" credit is appropriate when there is source material of a story nature (with or without a "Screen Story" credit) or when the writer(s) entitled to "Story by" credit is different than the writer(s) entitled to "Screenplay by" credit.

The term "Written by" is used when the writer(s) is entitled to both the "Story by" credit and the "Screenplay by" credit.

This credit shall not be granted where there is source material of a story nature. However, biographical, newspaper and other factual sources may not necessarily deprive the writer of such credit.

Spock wrote:SSS in the Revenant Thread>>>
) DiCaprio is good in the movie, but it's not his best work. However, this is the same situation Al Pacino was in when he won the Oscar. Everyone feels it's DiCaprio's turn and no one else had a blow-the-doors off performance that would dazzle the viewers.<<<<

What is the movie/role where he maybe should have won for before? Or is it mainly because of his body of work?

Given my tastes, you will not be surprised that I love him in Blood Diamond-A Wilbur Smith character come to life. My absolute favorite death scene in any movie. Whenever I need cheering up, I like to watch that scene.

I thought DiCaprio deserved the Oscar for Wolf of Wall Street (Matthew McConnaughey won) and for Django, for which he wasn't even nominated.

Not a lot of diversity this year:





or last year:

Vandal wrote:Not a lot of diversity this year:

The problem with that is the fact that there weren't a lot of performances by black actors that could even arguably be considered Oscar-worthy this year. Will Smith was good in Concussion, but good doesn't mean Oscar-worthy. I didn't see Idris Elba's performance, but at least three white actors whose performances I saw (Steve Carell, Michael Keaton, Michael Shannon) were also left out this year. That's what happens, especially in a category like Best Supporting Actor, that gets a lot of competition. The complaint had a lot more validity last year when David Oyelowo should have been nominated for Selma.

And it's highly hypocritical for Spike Lee of all people, who just went home with an honorary Oscar despite the fact that no one has paid money to see any movie he's made in over a decade, to complain about this. In Lee's diatribe against the Oscars, he complained about the projects that the studios decide to greenlight. Studios have no problem greenlighting projects with Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, or Tyler Perry in them. Those projects make money but they don't lead to Oscar nominations (the same can be said for lots of other movies like the Transformers franchise). Here's the list of the movies that had Best Actor/Actress nominees:

The Revenant*
The Danish Girl
Steve Jobs
The Martian*
Trumbo
Joy*
Carol
Brooklyn
The Room
45 Years

Only the three marked by asterisks are major studio, mainstream releases. The rest are pretty much independent and art house projects. Go back to 2014 and it's even worse. Only two of the ten films that produced Best Actor/Actress nominees that year (American Sniper, Gone Girl) were major releases.

What's really bad is that Spike Lee had a chance to do something about it and didn't. He made a movie about a very timely topic, black-on-black violence, that could easily have landed several nominations. Unfortunately, for reasons known only to himself, he turned Chi-raq into a self-indulgent gimmick film that more closely resembled a booty call movie. His attempt to pattern the film after Lysistrata was a disastrous failure. I guess he was in too much of a hurry to get home to watch the Bowl games with Charles Barkley and Samuel L. Jackson (who delivered a witty, tongue-in-cheek performance in Chi-raq that might have earned an Oscar bid in a better written movie). If Spike Lee, who has the clout to get a top notch cast of black actors, can't make a decent film on a timely topic, then he's got no business bad mouthing other independent producers for not coming up with similar projects that could well earn some Oscar nominations for black actors.

I was going to suggest expanding the possible acting nomination list to six or seven in each category--like they already did a few years ago when they expanded the Best Picture nominations to a maximum of ten--but the Academy would probably just end up nominating four or eight more foreign actors that I've never heard of.

You think that radioactive bagpipe Trump is mad about immigration now? Just wait until the foreigners take more Oscar nominations from Americans.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Vandal wrote:Not a lot of diversity this year:

The problem with that is the fact that there weren't a lot of performances by black actors that could even arguably be considered Oscar-worthy this year. Will Smith was good in Concussion, but good doesn't mean Oscar-worthy. I didn't see Idris Elba's performance, but at least three white actors whose performances I saw (Steve Carell, Michael Keaton, Michael Shannon) were also left out this year. That's what happens, especially in a category like Best Supporting Actor, that gets a lot of competition. The complaint had a lot more validity last year when David Oyelowo should have been nominated for Selma.

And it's highly hypocritical for Spike Lee of all people, who just went home with an honorary Oscar despite the fact that no one has paid money to see any movie he's made in over a decade, to complain about this. In Lee's diatribe against the Oscars, he complained about the projects that the studios decide to greenlight. Studios have no problem greenlighting projects with Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, or Tyler Perry in them. Those projects make money but they don't lead to Oscar nominations (the same can be said for lots of other movies like the Transformers franchise). Here's the list of the movies that had Best Actor/Actress nominees:

The Revenant*
The Danish Girl
Steve Jobs
The Martian*
Trumbo
Joy*
Carol
Brooklyn
The Room
45 Years

Only the three marked by asterisks are major studio, mainstream releases. The rest are pretty much independent and art house projects. Go back to 2014 and it's even worse. Only two of the ten films that produced Best Actor/Actress nominees that year (American Sniper, Gone Girl) were major releases.

What's really bad is that Spike Lee had a chance to do something about it and didn't. He made a movie about a very timely topic, black-on-black violence, that could easily have landed several nominations. Unfortunately, for reasons known only to himself, he turned Chi-raq into a self-indulgent gimmick film that more closely resembled a booty call movie. His attempt to pattern the film after Lysistrata was a disastrous failure. I guess he was in too much of a hurry to get home to watch the Bowl games with Charles Barkley and Samuel L. Jackson (who delivered a witty, tongue-in-cheek performance in Chi-raq that might have earned an Oscar bid in a better written movie). If Spike Lee, who has the clout to get a top notch cast of black actors, can't make a decent film on a timely topic, then he's got no business bad mouthing other independent producers for not coming up with similar projects that could well earn some Oscar nominations for black actors.

It looks like the real problem is casting (Spike Lee notwithstanding). It seems like most movies follow the path of white people writing white roles for white audiences.

It's true in literature, where there is a big push to embrace diversity. Unfortunately, I've seen the covers of books with Asian heroines "whitewashed" with Caucasian covers because someone in marketing insisted that they would sell better. Similarly, white leads in movies may be more marketable than non-white leads.

My latest book features an 11-year-old Vietnamese main character. Publishers say they want diversity, but don't always take action to make it happen. I'd be shocked if it got a sniff from the big houses.

Here's the most recent report on Hollywood and television diversity. Although published in 2015, it only includes films through 2013. This year's report will be out in another month.

In 2013, minorities (which includes Hispanics like the last two winners for Best Director, Alejandro Inarritu and Alfonso Cuaron), directed about 18% of the major release feature films examined. They wrote about 12% of the films studied. Both of those were slight improvements over the previous year.

Another problem is that when black writers and directors do succeed, they do the same thing white writers and directors do, go after commercial projects that have little chance of getting awards recognition. Lee Daniels has spent his time working on the TV series Empire. Ryan Coogler's next project will be a comic book movie. Antoine Fuqua is cranking out lucrative action films with Denzel Washington. Tim Story makes Kevin Hart movies. Tyler Perry makes Madea movies.

http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp-con ... -25-15.pdf

Tonight at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, Idris Elba won the Best Supporting Actor award (called the "Actor") for Beasts of No Nation. I'm somewhat curious how much if any of the voting was done after Elba failed to get an Oscar nomination for the role. It was a big night for Elba, who also won an award for his work on the television series Luther.

Vandal wrote:It looks like the real problem is casting (Spike Lee notwithstanding). It seems like most movies follow the path of white people writing white roles for white audiences.

It makes sense, because America is becoming so self-segregated, you don't want to make a movie with an Asian lead and have it flop because White people think it's "not for us." Even with the racial mix of America changing, it is still 63% White to 5.6% Asian. When a $100 million film gets made, that has to be a part of the calculus.

CarShark wrote:

Vandal wrote:It looks like the real problem is casting (Spike Lee notwithstanding). It seems like most movies follow the path of white people writing white roles for white audiences.

It makes sense, because America is becoming so self-segregated, you don't want to make a movie with an Asian lead and have it flop because White people think it's "not for us." Even with the racial mix of America changing, it is still 63% White to 5.6% Asian. When a $100 million film gets made, that has to be a part of the calculus.

There are other countries besides America. I just checked the box office for Avatar, as a random example. It earned more than 70% of its revenues outside the USA.

CarShark wrote:

Vandal wrote:It looks like the real problem is casting (Spike Lee notwithstanding). It seems like most movies follow the path of white people writing white roles for white audiences.

It makes sense, because America is becoming so self-segregated, you don't want to make a movie with an Asian lead and have it flop because White people think it's "not for us." Even with the racial mix of America changing, it is still 63% White to 5.6% Asian. When a $100 million film gets made, that has to be a part of the calculus.

I guess the producers of the new Star Wars movie didn't get your memo about casting before they cast a woman, a black, and a Hispanic as the three new heroic characters in the film.

Box office receipts for week of January 15 (first week of release for both films):

Ride Along 2: $35 million
13 Hours: $16 million

And I did think 13 Hours was a much better film than Ride Along 2.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/ch ... =03&p=.htm

silverscreenselect wrote:I guess the producers of the new Star Wars movie didn't get your memo about casting before they cast a woman, a black, and a Hispanic as the three new heroic characters in the film.

That's because...



The only thing I wonder is why the chick gets the British accent, which the black dude speaks with an American one? (Both are British, BTW.)