88TH ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS Discussion Topic (LIVE! Today's discussion begins on pg 33)

[Joel M]

^

You 're right. I just checked on BOM and Hurt Locker actually did 49m WW on a 15m budget, so it wasn't a bust.

 

I also scrolled the Oscar Index on BOM. Guess who many of the movies that have won picture, director, screenplay, or an acting award from 2001 till last year didn't made over twice their budget Worldwide at the BO.

 

THREE!

 

Adaptation (33m WW on a 19m budget)

The Aviator (214m WW on a 110m budget)

Syriana (94m WW on a 50m budget)

[CoolioD1]

fassbender was good but rewatching the martian I've really come around to damon being the best of that group. good old fashioned charisma driven movie star acting is hard enough but he goes through a ton of emotions and never overplays it UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE NOMINATED.

[All about Eve - old]

6 hours ago, filmlover said:

If it weren't for the fact he already won last year, we would probably be seeing Redmayne winning.

Now, that is a scary thought lol

Edited February 20, 2016 by All about Eve

[All about Eve - old]

4 hours ago, Joel M said:

 

not the same thing. Room is the tiny movie that made it and it's box office makes it a relative success. Steve Jobs was a much bigger and more commercial project that didn't even needed to make that much money to be a success but bombed horribly.

 

Who made the most money doesn't matter for the oscars because not every movie has the same financial ceiling, but relative BO success matters more than anything. I can think of only one movie that won a "big" Academy Award without being succesful at the BO, The Hurt Locker, which is a rare exception. Almost every movie that has won one of the big awards (picture, directing, screenplays, acting) has been at least a mild success regarding budget and expectations. If a really small movie like Room makes 15m at the box office instead of 2, it's a hit. If a 30m budgeted big studio movie with famous names both behind and in front of the camera and substantial marketing push struggles to make 30m WW it's a huge flop. 

 

The Academy doesn't like to give it's biggest awards to movies that audiences rejected.

Oh, I see all that. I know there were different expectations of the two films. I suppose I'm just  saying it's unfair.

A great performance is a great performance. But there seems to have been  gloomy cloud over his nominations  (although thankfully he's been nominated for everything,  so clearly voters do have integrity).

Two men and a dog saw Trumbo but he's also been nominated which is great.

If the Martian had flopped no way would Damon have been in any awards conversation, imo.

So, it's swings and roundabouts, I suppose.

Edited February 21, 2016 by All about Eve

[Jake Gittes]

There's no way The Hurt Locker made that $49m WW prior to the ceremony though. 

[Joel M]

11 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

There's no way The Hurt Locker made that $49m WW prior to the ceremony though. 

 

Yeah I remember it being around 28-30m WW when it won at the oscars. In the US it was at 14m before oscar night and made just 3m after that, but at least half of the OS money must have came after the BP win. 

 

In my country it was released the week after it won. I assume a lot of terrioties that would never release it theatrically under "normal" circumstances were waiting for it win.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Joel M

[filmlover]

The Hurt Locker had been available on DVD for a while by the time it won Best Picture. Had the movie opened in November or December, it would've made at least triple its $17M gross.

[Dementeleus]

Pinning this for now, and we'll move to the main forum on, say, Saturday.

[GiantCALBears]

1 hour ago, Telemachos said:

Pinning this for now, and we'll move to the main forum on, say, Saturday.

 

Nice work man, thanks.

[Impact]

Remember less then a week before the Oscar game is due!

While I do feel confident in the main categories, some I am wondering about, visual effects-while I'm 80% sure Star Wars will win, it wouldn't surprise me if Mad Max, Martian or even Revenant beat it, as remember no BP nominated film has ever lost that category to a film not nominated. Sound and sound editing-I could see any of the noms wins (okay maybe not Sicario). And of course shorts-I could be 100% right or 100% wrong.

[The Renaissance Fan]

The Academy doesn't always get it right:

http://therenaissancefan.com/best-picture-part-2

Please share your thoughts!

 

[Joel M]

 

4 hours ago, The Renaissance Fan said:

The Academy doesn't always get it right:

http://therenaissancefan.com/best-picture-part-2

Please share your thoughts!

 

 

Should Have Won: Titanic was destined to win, but L.A. Confidential is vastly superior.

 

This statement is getting funnier every year. I think LA Confidential is a very good movie but it's legacy is kind of hilarious. It was hailed as the masterpiece that lost because of Titanic's hype back in the day and many people still bring it up as "the great movie" that lost because Titanic was too popular. But aside from that, it is a movie just as forgotten as previous "bad" BP winners like the English Patient and the Last Emperor. I'm not saying it's not as remembered as Titanic (of course it isn't, it never could be), I'm saying that while many other great movies of the 90s (award winning or not) have been evaluated, analysed and referenced to death, LA Confidential remains as forgotten as 8 mile (also a good Curtis Hanson movie).

[GiantCALBears]

Can someone explain why Mark Rylance's odds are so high (2/1 vs 1/2.5 for Stallone)? Both the supporting races are fairly close for the supposed front runners. Vikander is the favorite at 1/2 but Mara 3/1 & Winslet 3.25/1 have more than reasonable chances.

[GiantCALBears]

Best picture is without a doubt down to 3 films, Revenant is in front at 1/1.75 but Spotlight (2/1) & The Big Short (3/1) are very possible to take the big prize. Leo (1/50), Larson (1/20), Big Short in adapted (1/10), Spotlight in original (1/12) are all pretty much locks. Inarritu (1/6) is close although if you are a gambler Miller (5/1) could pull a major upset.

[filmlover]

11 hours ago, GiantCALBears said:

Can someone explain why Mark Rylance's odds are so high (2/1 vs 1/2.5 for Stallone)? Both the supporting races are fairly close for the supposed front runners. Vikander is the favorite at 1/2 but Mara 3/1 & Winslet 3.25/1 have more than reasonable chances.

Rylance is more likely to pull off an upset in Supporting Actor than Mara is in Supporting Actress (really, if not even BFCA went for her, no one is). The thing about Rylance is that it's such a quiet and non-showy role. And then there's a question of whether he will even attend the ceremony.

[RichWS]

Yeah, I don't get Rylance's odds there. I do think Winslet-Vikander is a interesting race. Don't give Mara any shot, though. 

[Joel M]

13 hours ago, GiantCALBears said:

Can someone explain why Mark Rylance's odds are so high (2/1 vs 1/2.5 for Stallone)? Both the supporting races are fairly close for the supposed front runners. Vikander is the favorite at 1/2 but Mara 3/1 & Winslet 3.25/1 have more than reasonable chances.

 

I think it's as simple as Rylance got SAG ie already got votes by thousands of industry people where Stallone got the globe. I still think Stallone is more likely to win than not, but based on actual data I get how the bookmakers give a slight edge to Rylance.

[filmlover]

9 minutes ago, Joel M said:

 

I think it's as simple as Rylance got SAG ie already got votes by thousands of industry people where Stallone got the globe. I still think Stallone is more likely to win than not, but based on actual data I get how the bookmakers give a slight edge to Rylance.

Rylance didn't win SAG, the not-nominated Idris Elba did. Basically the only places Stallone hasn't won are the places where he wasn't nominated.

[GiantCALBears]

47 minutes ago, Joel M said:

 

I think it's as simple as Rylance got SAG ie already got votes by thousands of industry people where Stallone got the globe. I still think Stallone is more likely to win than not, but based on actual data I get how the bookmakers give a slight edge to Rylance.

Joel, Stallone is still the favorite (1/2.5 means you have to bet $250 to win $100 vs Rylance 2/1 where you can bet $100 to win $200). He's an underdog but far from a long shot.

[CoolioD1]

soon...