82nd Academy Awards Nominations

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

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:34 pm

Leeder wrote:I believe River Phoenix and Joaquin Phoenix are the only nominated acting brothers.

Yep.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2609
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Postby Okri » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:30 pm

ITALIANO wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:The reflex is to say the Blind Side best picture nod nudges Bullock over Streep, and it may be the case. But maybe not. I'd say many of the folk who'd vote for Bullock would also be inclined to vote The Blind Side for best picture. Whereas, I'd vote for Streep, but wouldn't in a million years consider voting for Julie and Julia itself.

You are right - but I heard the applause, too.

Yeah, the whoops for Bullock and The BLind Side were more irritating than the nominatiosn themselves

mashari
Temp
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 3:26 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Postby mashari » Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:12 pm

dws1982 wrote:They may still be about to go under, but the Weinsteins do have the most nominations of any studio this year with 13.

And Meryl Streep has left Katharine Hepburn in the dust once again: Not only does her sixteenth nomination put her even farther ahead of Hepburn on the all-time acting nominations list, today's nomination in gives her the most nominations in Best Actress, with thirteen.

If Avatar wins, it would be the first Best Picture winner with no acting or writing nominations since what? Grand Hotel?

Well, Slumdog didn't have any acting noms either, but for writing as well it may be GH.

No real surprises. Happy for Maggie G, I was almost certain that she would lose out again, this time in favor of Samantha who would ride into the nominations once again with low/minimal buzz. Penelope's nomination kind of sticks out like a sore thumb, but I guess the acting branch really likes her.

Despite Avatar and HL's noms I think IB shouldn't be counted out with this new voting system and if Quentin can pull off BS, I think the final award will be a real nail-bitter.

Oh, and anyone who thinks Sandra isn't taking this home now is seriously kidding themselves.




Edited By mashari on 1265131849
"The only thing I regret about my past is the length of it. If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes... only sooner."--Tallulah Bankhead

Leeder
Graduate
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Calgary, AB

Postby Leeder » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:49 am

Big Magilla wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Unless I'm forgetting someone, Maggie and Jake Gyllenhaal are only the fourth pair of siblings to be nominated for acting Oscars, behind Lionel and Ethel Barrymore, Shirley MacLaine and Warren Beatty and Jane and Peter Fonda. Norma Shearer and her brother Douglas have multiple Oscar nominations but only Norman's were for acting. Douglas was a sound engineer.

There are Jennifer and Meg Tilly, Julia and Eric Roberts, the Redgraves, probably many others.

The Redgrave family has three nominees by the way.

I knew I should have done a little checking before I posted that. And thank you, Uri, for reminding us of the Coppolas as well.

The Redgraves were in fact the first family to have three acting nominees. The Fondas, of course, were the second.

I believe River Phoenix and Joaquin Phoenix are the only nominated acting brothers.




Edited By Leeder on 1265129396

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:47 am

Mister Tee wrote:The reflex is to say the Blind Side best picture nod nudges Bullock over Streep, and it may be the case. But maybe not. I'd say many of the folk who'd vote for Bullock would also be inclined to vote The Blind Side for best picture. Whereas, I'd vote for Streep, but wouldn't in a million years consider voting for Julie and Julia itself.

You are right - but I heard the applause, too.

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2998
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Postby dws1982 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:29 am

They may still be about to go under, but the Weinsteins do have the most nominations of any studio this year with 13.

And Meryl Streep has left Katharine Hepburn in the dust once again: Not only does her sixteenth nomination put her even farther ahead of Hepburn on the all-time acting nominations list, today's nomination in gives her the most nominations in Best Actress, with thirteen.

If Avatar wins, it would be the first Best Picture winner with no acting or writing nominations since what? Grand Hotel?

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

Postby Mister Tee » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:00 am

So the answer is yes: in the major categories, they decided to phone it in this year.

I groaned from the get-go (Penelope Cruz), brightened briefly for Gyllenhaal, then settled in as the seasonal template was followed to the letter through the rest of the actors and directors. The writers, god bless 'em, changed things up a tad; the animators surprised us a teeny bit with Kells over Meatballs (and I, like many here, struggled to remember just what the hell Kells was); and best picture offered predictability even where things hadn't been 100% certain.

To salute myself, the one-from-column-A approach I advocated last week actually worked in picking the last three best picture nominees -- one off-beat (A Serious Man), one down the middle drama (An Education), and one commercial piece of cheese (Blind Side). I'm not sure we want to say Hangover and Star trek would NEVER have been nominated, as they might have filled slots taken by District 9 (a more creative, original commercial sci-fi effort) and Blind Side (an audience pleaser with a more serious patina). Oh, and does the Up nomination confirm at last our year-old suspicion that Wall E was highly in the running for a best picture nod back in the day?

As far as the Academy is concerned, the jump to ten is likely viewed as a success, since it yielded three $100 million+ films against only two low grossers (and, added to the standard five, gave us five $100 million grossers among the best picture contenders). I view it more narrowly: a film I love (A Serious Man) got a nomination it never would have normally, but that has to be balanced against a film that makes my skin crawl (Blind Side) achieving the same. All tolled, I don't think it's a good trade-off.

The reflex is to say the Blind Side best picture nod nudges Bullock over Streep, and it may be the case. But maybe not. I'd say many of the folk who'd vote for Bullock would also be inclined to vote The Blind Side for best picture. Whereas, I'd vote for Streep, but wouldn't in a million years consider voting for Julie and Julia itself.

Sonic, I'm sorry I didn't have time to do my alphabetical clues post this year -- it might have saved you angst over Bigelow/Cameron.

I don't hate the Invictus performances, and, like Italiano, I can live with the Freeman mention. But the Damon citation seems to have arisen strictly from overall fame and a campaign strategy -- who would consider this one of Damon's top performances, or view his work as superior to the unnominated Molina, Capaldi or McKay?

So, had this been a normal (five nominee) year, we would have had our third five-for-five film/director match in the past five years...this after only three such matches in all previous history. Inexorable groupthink?

Nice to see in the Loop nominated, though I'm sorry Mr. Fox was omitted. As I said last week, though, whichever five got nominated, there was going to be a disappointing omission.

The surprise omissions elsewhere include, as many are pointing out, Up in the Air for editing -- it's the one of the DGA five to miss out, where you'd have expected Precious to be the one. It does indeed hurt Up in the Air's chances of a best picture push.

And District 9's Guild triumphs were a bit of a mirage. I was expecting 7-8 nods; 4 seems puny by comparison.

If Up were going to get one sound nod and Transformers the other, I'd have expected the reverse of the way it turned out.

By the way Up, despite the easier route to a best picture nod, ended up with fewer nominations than Wall E.

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Postby rolotomasi99 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:41 am

For all those scratching their heads about The Hurt Locker score nomination, below is a sample of the gorgeous music from the film (spoiler warning since it includes clips from the film):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELGxk2qGaLA

Marco Beltrami along with Alexandre Desplat are my two new favorite composers.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5224
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Postby anonymous1980 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:40 am

The Blind Side and District 9 - to me, these two films represent the PRO and the CON of the 10-wide Best Picture race. While it's great that a relatively-low-budget largely-foreign made science-fiction film can get nominated for Best Picture, it's almost equally ridiculous that a freakin' glorified Lifetime-movie-of-the-week can also call itself a Best Picture nominee.

rudeboy
Adjunct
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:00 am
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby rudeboy » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:27 am

I'm genuinely quite upset that (500) Days of Summer was shafted. I knew they'd do that, I just knew it.

Did they really have to show such as lack of imagination as to include Penelope Cruz? I'm no big fan of Inglorious Basterds but both Laurent and Kruger were terrific - certainly as memorable as Waltz.

Happy for Gyllenhaal, although I haven't had a chance to see the film yet.

Thank goodness The White Ribbon's cinematography made the grade.

User avatar
MovieWes
Professor
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Contact:

Postby MovieWes » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:17 am

Big Magilla wrote:Maggie and Jake's mother, Naomi Foner, was nominated for a n Oscar for the screenplay to Running on Empty. Again, unless I'm forgetting someone, they only the second family with three OScar nominees after the Hustons: Walter, John and Anjelica.

Carmine, Francis, and Sofia Coppola are all winners. Plus Nicolas Cage is a winner and Talia Shire is a nominee.

EDIT: Nevermind. I just noticed that Uri already pointed this out.




Edited By MovieWes on 1265124231
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)

User avatar
MovieWes
Professor
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Contact:

Postby MovieWes » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:14 am

WTF is The Secret of Kells?!?!?!?! And why in the hell is it nominated for Best Animated Feature?!?!?!?!?!
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)

dreaMaker
Assistant
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:41 pm

Postby dreaMaker » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:10 am

criddic3 wrote:
dreaMaker wrote:
criddic3 wrote:
dreaMaker wrote:I m glad Hans Zimmer finally got nominated after many years of nothing.

Hans Zimmer is an Oscar winner for 1994's "The Lion King." He also got a nod in 2000 for "Gladiator."

Of course I know that, just saying I'm glad he finally got nominated after he received no nominations for The Da Vinci Code, Last Samurai, Pearl Harbor or The Holiday...

Of those you listed, only "The Last Samurai" is, in my opinion, a good movie. That doesn't mean a score can't be nominated, but I bet it's one of the reasons most of those didn't make it. Da Vinci Code was widely panned, Pearl Harbor managed a few techs (the effects were quite good) and The Holiday was forgotten as soon as it came out.

I agree, but those movies had good music..

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4205
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Postby The Original BJ » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:10 am

I had three major thoughts while watching/reading this morning's nominations:

1. You can add five more nominees, but you can't change the Academy's taste, for better and for worse. In other words, populist voters may go for an uplifting, real-life sports drama (though if they had to, why couldn't it have been Invictus instead of what is now the single worst Best Picture nominee in a LONG time! UGH!) But, no, they won't go for a raunchy comedy about men behaving badly, or the umpteenth installment of a sci-fi franchise, as I've been saying from the beginning.

2. Watching the live broadcast, I could only help but think...how totally NOT surprising. Of the acting nominees, only one (ONE!!!!!) of twenty differed from SAG. DGA matched perfectly. Aside from the totally off-the-wall Secret of Kells nomination, and the heartbreaking snub of (500) Days's script (for me, the year's best screenplay), the major nominations seemed nearly entirely in line with the precursors. So much for trying to predict the surprises when there aren't any.

3. When I got online to check out the below-the-line nominations, my attitude changed entirely -- HERE were the surprises! Out-of-nowhere nominations for Paris 36 and Il Divo. District 9 curiously left out of art direction, and the sound categories, and, most shockingly of all, makeup, where I thought it would likely win. (I mean, The Young Victoria over Wikus's alien arm?!) Harry Potter's cinematography nomination. The Hurt Locker's score. The twin nods for Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, in two categories I thought Inglourious Basterds would definitely score. And even semi-surprises like Up in the Air's editing omission, the song nod for the better Nine number, and two song bids for Princess and the Frog.

Here's the conclusion I've reached: in the categories where there aren't a gazillion precursors, the Academy really has the possibility to throw some wild cards at us. But in the above-the-line categories, they simply replicate those exact same candidates feted by BFCA/Globe/SAG/BAFTA/everyone else. Ultimately, I'm not sure if the precursors influence voters in these categories to a degree that they can't find more interesting choices than Penélope Cruz and Matt Damon even though they wouldn't have to look far, or if the precursors simply turn what we might have thought of as iffy candidates (Jeremy Renner, Helen Mirren, Stanley Tucci) into done deals by Oscar nom morning, taking all the surprise out of it. All I know is, once again for better and for worse, at least it looks like some thought and personal opinion went into these below-the-line nominations, whereas in the major categories, I see no such personality.

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2722
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Eric » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:08 am

Sabin wrote:
The only thing worse than middle-of-the-road Oscar nominees is the blatant snobbery in comparing "art" to "commerce."

I don't agree. I think if anything, this is the PERFECT time to discuss this. Last year, two "commercial" films (The Dark Knight, WALL-E) lost to an "artistic" one. This year with the scope broadened to ten nominees, it's the perfect time to truly gauge whither lies the acumen of their sensibilities.

I don't know what it proves, really, other than that the Oscars prefer to nominate bad art movies over good commercial films ... and bad commercial films over good art films, for that matter.

Still, good going A Serious Man and Inglourious Basterds.


Return to “82nd Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest