89th Oscar Nominations

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6501
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby Mister Tee » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:47 pm

Big Magilla wrote:
mlrg wrote:
HarryGoldfarb wrote:Greg P. Russell's sound mixing nomination for '13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi' was rescinded, though the film itself remains in contention for Sunday's awards.


Why?

Cheating. He called his friends and reminded them he worked on the film that hardly anyone saw.

Which in a certain way ought to render the whole nomination invalid. A crony-ish branch like sound might well have voted for that crappy film SOLELY because Russell's name was attached.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby Big Magilla » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:28 pm

mlrg wrote:
HarryGoldfarb wrote:Greg P. Russell's sound mixing nomination for '13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi' was rescinded, though the film itself remains in contention for Sunday's awards.


Why?

Cheating. He called his friends and reminded them he worked on the film that hardly anyone saw.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1111
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby mlrg » Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:11 pm

HarryGoldfarb wrote:Greg P. Russell's sound mixing nomination for '13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi' was rescinded, though the film itself remains in contention for Sunday's awards.


Why?

HarryGoldfarb
Assistant
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby HarryGoldfarb » Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:31 pm

Greg P. Russell's sound mixing nomination for '13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi' was rescinded, though the film itself remains in contention for Sunday's awards.
If moderation is a fault, then indifference is a crime.
- Jack Kerouac

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:18 pm

Manchester by the Sea and Moonlight were the two best films of the year. I don't even know where La La Land is going to end up on my list when all is said and done.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

danfrank
Temp
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby danfrank » Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:05 pm

Reza wrote:
danfrank wrote:I'm not surprised, just disappointed. I was generalizing BJ's friends in the film industry to those industry folks who are Academy voters. We already know that lots of these folks don't have particularly sophisticated taste, though I reserve the right to occasionally gripe about it. I would say, Reza, that if something hits a nerve then it isn't a snooze fest. It may not be something enjoyable, as you suggest, but not a "colossal snooze," as BJ put it. Manchester is about complex interior lives and about emotional trauma, and my guess is that those bored with it don't have the capacity to engage at this level. I'm not saying everybody should like this film as much as me--for example, people with trauma backgrounds may understandably find it too much to take--but I do think those who are bored with it just don't get it.


I know what you're saying. Watched it finally last night. It's magnificent.


:D

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8151
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby Reza » Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:04 am

danfrank wrote:I'm not surprised, just disappointed. I was generalizing BJ's friends in the film industry to those industry folks who are Academy voters. We already know that lots of these folks don't have particularly sophisticated taste, though I reserve the right to occasionally gripe about it. I would say, Reza, that if something hits a nerve then it isn't a snooze fest. It may not be something enjoyable, as you suggest, but not a "colossal snooze," as BJ put it. Manchester is about complex interior lives and about emotional trauma, and my guess is that those bored with it don't have the capacity to engage at this level. I'm not saying everybody should like this film as much as me--for example, people with trauma backgrounds may understandably find it too much to take--but I do think those who are bored with it just don't get it.


I know what you're saying. Watched it finally last night. It's magnificent.

danfrank
Temp
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby danfrank » Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:28 pm

Reza wrote:
danfrank wrote:
The Original BJ wrote:This is nothing but anecdotal evidence, but I'm genuinely surprised by how many people in my circles (i.e. Hollywood) DESPISE Manchester by the Sea. And I don't mean, they think it's simply overpraised, but they think it is a colossal snooze where absolutely nothing of interest happens.


I think this sorta answers my earlier question about who votes for a movie like Hacksaw Ridge.


I don't know why danfrank is surprised that people he knows found Manchester a snoozefest. People generally don't enjoy watching familial anguish. It's something that hits a nerve. You don't want to relive sort of similar events that may have taken place in your own life. People (the general public) prefer to watch upbeat films. Hacksaw Ridge is patriotic and upbeat (even if one has to wade through blood and gore - it's a depiction of war so acceptable). And the simplistic "aw shucks" character played by Garfield and the depiction of his life, which may seem derivitive to many, is actually somebody easily identifiable and hence acceptable to many.


I'm not surprised, just disappointed. I was generalizing BJ's friends in the film industry to those industry folks who are Academy voters. We already know that lots of these folks don't have particularly sophisticated taste, though I reserve the right to occasionally gripe about it. I would say, Reza, that if something hits a nerve then it isn't a snooze fest. It may not be something enjoyable, as you suggest, but not a "colossal snooze," as BJ put it. Manchester is about complex interior lives and about emotional trauma, and my guess is that those bored with it don't have the capacity to engage at this level. I'm not saying everybody should like this film as much as me--for example, people with trauma backgrounds may understandably find it too much to take--but I do think those who are bored with it just don't get it.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8151
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby Reza » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:04 am

danfrank wrote:
The Original BJ wrote:This is nothing but anecdotal evidence, but I'm genuinely surprised by how many people in my circles (i.e. Hollywood) DESPISE Manchester by the Sea. And I don't mean, they think it's simply overpraised, but they think it is a colossal snooze where absolutely nothing of interest happens.


I think this sorta answers my earlier question about who votes for a movie like Hacksaw Ridge.


I don't know why danfrank is surprised that people he knows found Manchester a snoozefest. People generally don't enjoy watching familial anguish. It's something that hits a nerve. You don't want to relive sort of similar events that may have taken place in your own life. People (the general public) prefer to watch upbeat films. Hacksaw Ridge is patriotic and upbeat (even if one has to wade through blood and gore - it's a depiction of war so acceptable). And the simplistic "aw shucks" character played by Garfield and the depiction of his life, which may seem derivitive to many, is actually somebody easily identifiable and hence acceptable to many.

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5223
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby anonymous1980 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:34 am

Jefforey Smith wrote:I really liked the new format (announcement done with voiceovers as nominee's names appear on-screen all intertwined with past Oscar winners' remarks) & felt GMA did fantastic with coverage. (P.S. Did E! cover it?)


I actually disagree. I'm not a fan of this new format. I like the spontaneity of the early morning press conference style announcement.

danfrank
Temp
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby danfrank » Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:02 am

The Original BJ wrote:This is nothing but anecdotal evidence, but I'm genuinely surprised by how many people in my circles (i.e. Hollywood) DESPISE Manchester by the Sea. And I don't mean, they think it's simply overpraised, but they think it is a colossal snooze where absolutely nothing of interest happens.


I think this sorta answers my earlier question about who votes for a movie like Hacksaw Ridge.

Jefforey Smith
Graduate
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby Jefforey Smith » Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:16 pm

The nominations went as expected though the Academy deviated a bit from the consensus (no Amy Adams or Hugh Grant). Michael Shannon & Ruth Negga were no doubt in-the-mix and their inclusions are nice to see. It's especially great for Shannon, who hails from my hometown of Lexington, Kentucky.

I really liked the new format (announcement done with voiceovers as nominee's names appear on-screen all intertwined with past Oscar winners' remarks) & felt GMA did fantastic with coverage. (P.S. Did E! cover it?)

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7395
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby Sabin » Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:12 pm

Uri wrote
When did this Amy Adams thing happen? And even more important, how?

But largely, Amy Adam's ridiculously strong nomination total has come from good projects where she gets swept along with the film. This is to say nothing about her talent. I think she's very good. I had a very different reaction than you to her performance in Arrival, but as she is headlining it and competition was strong, we can see what happened.

She is very good Junebug and she would've been my choice to win, but it's not exactly a star is born moment. It's more of a "Oh, we should hire this person and put her in more things" moment. I think that would've happened even if she wasn't nominated. Her nomination largely happened because of that field. We see Frances McDormand for largely doing nothing in North Country, Catherine Keener for a body of work nomination, and basically anything to avoid honoring Mario Bello in A History of Violence. And for a few years, we saw a glimpse of what her career could've been. Roles like in Will Ferrell's Talladega Nights. She was destined to play Jenna Fischer roles (from The Office). Sweet, funny-ish women who believe in their man. She was swept along to a nomination with Doubt. I'm blanking on anyone else who could've been nominated that year. I would say that she's the beneficiary of Kate Winslet's shift to lead for The Reader, but then I remembered that Taraji P. Henson was nominated for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

I think this Amy Adams thing "happened" started when she was cast in movies by David O. Russell and Paul Thomas Anderson. For both films, I remember thinking "Oh, she'll probably win for this." The second film especially because it was such an anticipated event among my circles. Although she won awards for the idea of her performance in The Master, it was working with Russell on The Fighter that broke her away from playing pretty, girl-like characters and showed the world she had a potty mouth and boobs. Weird that it takes David O. Russell to do that and not Will Ferrell. She's also very good in the film and I thought she would win. Three nominations and an Oscar for playing a girlfriend? That sounds about right for her. But then Melissa Leo started winning. Even in American Hustle, her leading nomination seems more swept along than Jennifer Lawrence's supporting nomination. I resisted this idea for a while but Amy Adams' two leading bids for Big Eyes and Arrival came up short, both of which have something to say about the competition but also maybe how she is seen. Again: I think Arrival is her best performance.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1098
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby Uri » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:42 am

When did this Amy Adams thing happen? And even more important, how?

I haven’t seen Junebug, so enlighten me, what was in her performance there which made so many people lifelong admirers of her, or so it seems. From what I saw, she was good in The Fighter and very good, or very well used, in The Master, but usually she is mostly harmless – she knows her lines and doesn’t bump into the furniture, but she hardly brings anything extra to the table. She’s ok at best. And in Arrival, I found her usual unchallenging pleasantness to be even more lacking than usual. I didn’t believe for a second that this person was one of the greatest minds on the planet Earth. She didn’t seem to have even one tiny Chomskyan bone in her body. And in retrospect, there was nothing in her performance in the early part of the film to suggest the kind of altered consciousness she was supposed to be in, (but that goes along with the total lack of a sense of the passage of time in this film). Adams is blessed with this kind of ageless, relatively youthful, appearance, which is great if you are a fortysomething woman, but in this film it only enhanced her character being a rather non entity.

(This same ageless quality actually worked in her advance in Nocturnal Animals, where she was quite believable, without being too heavily made up, both as a 20 yo and as a 40 yo. As a whole, she was much better in this film, but still not award worthy).

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12546
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: 89th Oscar Nominations

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:30 am

Most of us don't give Gibson a chance because his movies are shite, Braveheart being the standout among the shite.

Further, I'm not religious and thus I have no plans of seeing Hacksaw Ridge or Silence until the vast bulk of the other Oscar nominated movies out there that I haven't seen is eventually watched.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin


Return to “89th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest