Golden Globe Nominations

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5897
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Postby flipp525 » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:04 am

It's strange to think that the whole Dreamgirls thing is somehow masturbation material for certain people here, but reading the past couple posts, it somehow becomes a believable, albeit tragically pathetic, reality.

Oh, and Amanda Knox? Really? If there was ever any reason to doubt the medieval nature of the Italian justice system, there's the case right in plain sight serving up a heaping dose of justification. What a moronic, misshapen form of justice -- the victim rising from the grave to point a fallible, bony finger.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

User avatar
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Postby Zahveed » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:41 am

To be fair, Nine only has 18 reviews and isn't released wide until Christmas day. A lot can happen in that week. Invictus, which was released Friday, has 148 reviews. The Lovely Bones, which was limited to 3 theaters, has 77 reviews and that count can be expected to double when it exands. Nine's Metacritic score (54), from a site that averages the actual ratings and not the number of good reviews it has, is also higher than The Lovely Bones (43).

Precious, Julie & Julia, and Where the Wild Things Are (be they contenders or not) all had mixed scores a week before their wide release date only to jump up 20 points later.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12689
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:38 am

I get so sick of the same boring discussions taking place every year. Let's move on. If I hear Dreamgirls evoked one more time, I'm closing this thread and any other thread it's brought up in. This is 2009, not 2006. Find a new topic.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:05 am

Damien wrote:Let's be factually accurate here. Evey year Tom O'Neil does a survey of "Oscar pundits" [that term always cracks me up] as to the most likely nominees. I think he starts it in September. In 2006, Dreamgirls was always number one or two on the list through early December. When the Globe nominations came out and Bill Condon didn't receive a nomination it dropped down a place or two, but bounced back when he got a DGA nomination.

In late November, "Carpetbagger" -- the New York Times Oscar reporter -- said they might as well not even hold the Oscars and just give it to Dreamgirls now.

Nobody has talked that way about Nine, nor is it a frontrunner in O'Neil's survey. I think we should be factually correct in terms of the pre-nominations atmosphere, and not re-write it in retrospect. (It's the same with 1995, leading up to awards seasons, the two films seen to be the front-runners were Casino and The American President. I think between them they received 2, maybe 3, nominations.)

The truth is that O'Neil and most of the other "official" Oscar predictors are, how shall I put it, not very intelligent generally, and this is why we often laugh at them. But when I did, about Dreamgirls, suddenly they became the Bible. Weird, eh?

And one just has to look at the predictions even on this board, or other places like Film Experience, to see how Nine was considered till three weeks ago (at one point, long ago, some even predicted THREE Best Supporting Actress nods for it, and you dont do that with a loser).

Sabin, I think you and maybe Sonic Youth were the only ones to slightly doubt Dreamgirls' chances.

Dont get me wrong, anyone can make mistakes, and I've been wrong about the Oscars too, sometimes (not often :;): ). It's the reaction which I found interesting, I mean interesting from a cultural/anthropological point of view even more than from a psychological one (being on this board helps me to understand what most Italians have problems with, like Amanda Knox's cultural background and behavior).

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 16212
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:07 am

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Nine's chances at a best picture nod. Lets remember that AMPAS members, not critics, bestow Oscar nominations. Craftspeople who nominate it for various technical awards and then list it as one of their best picture picks may be enough to get it nominated in a field of ten even if it doesn't win a single major category nomination which it probably won't.

We keep saying this or that film won't make it but they can;t all be tossed out.

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

Postby MovieWes » Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:33 pm

I, for one, think that Nine is dead. It currently holds a score of 36% on Rotten Tomatoes. That doesn't bode well for it. The Lovely Bones has a score of 39%, so it's 3% better than Nine. So, in a way, Nine is crumbling faster than The Lovely Bones. The Globes are star whores, so it's no surprise they went for it like they did.

Also, I'm fairly confident that The Lovely Bones will gross $100 million when it goes into wide release. I'm not feeling that for Nine.




Edited By MovieWes on 1260938342
"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
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:00 pm

Let's be factually accurate here. Evey year Tom O'Neil does a survey of "Oscar pundits" [that term always cracks me up] as to the most likely nominees. I think he starts it in September. In 2006, Dreamgirls was always number one or two on the list through early December. When the Globe nominations came out and Bill Condon didn't receive a nomination it dropped down a place or two, but bounced back when he got a DGA nomination.

In late November, "Carpetbagger" -- the New York Times Oscar reporter -- said they might as well not even hold the Oscars and just give it to Dreamgirls now.

Nobody has talked that way about Nine, nor is it a frontrunner in O'Neil's survey. I think we should be factually correct in terms of the pre-nominations atmosphere, and not re-write it in retrospect. (It's the same with 1995, leading up to awards seasons, the two films seen to be the front-runners were Casino and The American President. I think between them they received 2, maybe 3, nominations.)
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7696
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:20 pm

The truth is that it was THIS BOARD which desperately wanted to see it as the ONLY possible winner, despite everything. No movie, in any year, has Oscar "written all over it" since before it's released, except in the minds of its fans, or in those of the publicity department. There are ALWAYS possible alternatives, but that year, on this board, there were no alternatives. The other movies were quickly dismissed; it was only Dreamgirls here.

Don't wanna be That Guy, but I was talking about Little Miss Sunshine winning as early as September of '06. And continued in that notion until the day of the Oscars.
"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

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:23 pm

Maybe ;)

FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby FilmFan720 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:21 pm

Maybe we have learned from our mistakes:)
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:09 pm

The truth is that it was THIS BOARD which desperately wanted to see it as the ONLY possible winner, despite everything. No movie, in any year, has Oscar "written all over it" since before it's released, except in the minds of its fans, or in those of the publicity department. There are ALWAYS possible alternatives, but that year, on this board, there were no alternatives. The other movies were quickly dismissed; it was only Dreamgirls here.

Even before the Globes nominations, Dreamgirls was more or less ignored by precursor after precursor, including some, like the NBR, which SHOULD have mentioned it. Just like Nine today. But while today the obvious, normal reaction is "Nine wont win the Oscar" (and as we know, it wouldnt even be nominated in the old five slots format), back then it was "Dreamgorls will STILL win the Oscar". It had to.

It happens; admitting it wouldnt be a humiliating action.

FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby FilmFan720 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:53 pm

Now, my memory may be a little spotty, but in 2006 Dreamgirls was THE FILM of the late year releases that seemed to have Oscar written all over it. There weren't a lot of other big films that seemed to have a pedigree made up of an Oscar winner. A lot of us were grasping onto it because more than any other film, it felt like the Best Picture frontrunner. This was four years after Chicago, and was the first big musical to come out since, in this new "silver age of musicals." Look at the flock of films that took its place on the Best Picture slate, and it is one of the odder, more idiosyncratic lists of Best Picture nominees: quirky indie comedy, modern political chamber drama, violent mob thriller, great American director making a foreign-language war film and a sprawling multi-language epic about globalization. Nothing that year felt like an Oscar contender. When the Globes didn't give Bill Condon a nomination, it still gave the film 6 nominations (and remember, it won Best Picture there), it seemed like a minor setback. It still felt like it had momentum. You saw it differently, and you ended up being right. You must admit, though, that casting off a film with 6 nominations when it had so much going for it seemed odd.

This year, Nine is just one of several films courting for The Show that seem(ed) like legitimate contenders. In December, we have the big four of Invictus, The Lovely Bones, Nine and Avatar that two months ago could have had strong arguments made for possible front-runner status. Nine is holding its own better than the collapsing Lovely Bones, and possibly even better than Invictus. It is not falling flat on its face, and with the new rules this year no one is exactly sure what will happen. I don't think anyone here can say with certainty how this new 10 film list will affect the entire Academy roster...it will take a few years to figure that out.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:59 pm

I appreciate your approach to the whole thing, FilmFan, and I'm glad to find someone who can talk about it in a very reasonable way.

Yet, no, sorry. Nine had objectively a GREAT buzz, it's based on a very successful Broadway hit (I dont know if more successful than Dreamgirls, but definitely successful), its director is, unlike Condon, a former Best Director nominee, the director of a Best Picture winner which was also a much liked musical, and many EVEN on this board till two or three weeks ago were predicting lots of nominations and Oscars for it. The "aura" of Nine, the CAST, its Oscar potential, everything was much better than Dreamgirls, and OBJECTIVELY so.
The only difference, but it's not an objective difference, it's a SUBJECTIVE one, it's that "there are alot of us who like Bill Condon alot" (guess why). And you don't insult someone just because of something so personal and subjective, especially when this someone isnt saying something completely absurd. I smile about all that now, and if I bring it back again sometimes it's because others do it first. And why not, after all? It was fun, in a way, it's certainly over now, and I'm sure that after all this time I've been forgiven for having been right. But let me say that in Italy it wouldnt have happened, not among intelligent people, and not in such a grotesquely aggressive way.

Ah, and Dreamgirls led the year in nominations, true, but three of these were for Best Song, don't ignore it please! It wasnt certainly the big Oscar winner that "a lot of us who like Bill Condon alot" day after day thought it would be.




Edited By ITALIANO on 1260914441

FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby FilmFan720 » Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:24 pm

ITALIANO wrote:
flipp525 wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:What other musical was recently nominated at the Globes for Best Picture Comedy/Musical with several acting noms, but denied a Best Director nom? I'm sure Italiano could give us the answer.

Even back then, after the Globes nominations anyone could have clearly seen that Dreamgirls was dead. Dead. A bit like Nine this year. It's not like I was a genius and I said something others couldnt realize as well. Yet, for some strange reason, what today anyone can logically accept, a few years ago was suddenly unbelievable and insulting. It makes you think.

You are pretty firmly lodged up your own ass about that prediction, aren't you, Italiano?

Actually I was referring to THIS prediction, that Nine wont be the big winner and that, if it was still five nominees, wouldnt be nominated for Best Picture. Just like Dreamgirls. And I don't understand why this time I'm not getting the insults. Just this. Do you have an answer flipp?

As one of your main adversaries during the Dreamgirls argument, I think there are several reasons. The first is that I don't think the film is as highly anticipated as Dreamgirls is. There are a lot of us who like Bill Condon alot, were excited about his adaptation of a stage musical we like a lot and were hearing a lot of great buzz around the film. Nine hasn't been getting great buzz, is from a director that a lot of people here are ho-hum about and that doesn't come in with the ridiculous aura that Dreamgirls had. Like it or not, for most of that film Dreamgirls was being touted (and felt like) the frontrunner to beat, and a strong juggernaut. Remember, The Departed won that year pretty handily, yet when it came out none of us thought that it would even compete for the Oscars. It was a dry year, and the leading candidate was crumbling and a lot of us didn't see it coming.

This year, with 10 nominees, Nine hasn't failed enough to miss out on a Best Picture nod (even you have to agree that Dreamgirls would have gotten a nomination in a category of 10 in 2006). Furthermore, we are more interested in seeing how the other films are failing and succeeding (and how juggernaut frontrunner The Lovely Bones is crumbling in a much more dramatic fashion than Dreamgirls did). Nine was never the perceived pace car that Dreamgirls was, and it is hanging in. It will get a handful of nominations.

I would also like to remind you that while Dreamgirls did not get a Best Picture nomination, it did win one major award and lead the year in nominations. It was not the disastrous outcome that Into the Wild was the next year.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Postby ITALIANO » Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:29 pm

flipp525 wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:What other musical was recently nominated at the Globes for Best Picture Comedy/Musical with several acting noms, but denied a Best Director nom? I'm sure Italiano could give us the answer.

Even back then, after the Globes nominations anyone could have clearly seen that Dreamgirls was dead. Dead. A bit like Nine this year. It's not like I was a genius and I said something others couldnt realize as well. Yet, for some strange reason, what today anyone can logically accept, a few years ago was suddenly unbelievable and insulting. It makes you think.

You are pretty firmly lodged up your own ass about that prediction, aren't you, Italiano?

Actually I was referring to THIS prediction, that Nine wont be the big winner and that, if it was still five nominees, wouldnt be nominated for Best Picture. Just like Dreamgirls. And I don't understand why this time I'm not getting the insults. Just this. Do you have an answer flipp?


Return to “82nd Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest