92nd Academy Awards Nominations - The Official Thread | Joker leads the pack with 11 noms

[titanic2187]

2 minutes ago, Avatree said:

Weathering With You is not eligible because it comes out in 2020.

 

 

 

 

It is eligible . Check further. 

 

It had one -week qualifying run in 2019

[The Futurist]

15 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood were films with fascinating concepts that ended up being completely boring films. 

Ambient sales are down 48% since these movies were released.

[Avatree]

1 minute ago, titanic2187 said:

It is eligible . Check further. 

 

It had one -week qualifying run in 2019

Huh, you are correct. 

well, as it's not been released yet, not surprising for it not to have gotten any awards buzz or attention. 

 

Exactly the same thing happened with Your Name btw. it qualified for 2016 oscars but it wasn't released until the following year, so got no buzz and did not get nominated.

 

if no one watches your movie, you'll struggle to get award nominations.

[Valonqar]

can someone explain Editing to me? I'm reading on other sites that lack of Editing nom hurts OUATIH and 1917 even though they got Director nom. Apaprently, for some reason, editing nom > director nom when it comes to winning Picture. Please explain. 

[titanic2187]

2 minutes ago, Avatree said:

Huh, you are correct. 

well, as it's not been released yet, not surprising for it not to have gotten any awards buzz or attention. 

 

Exactly the same thing happened with Your Name btw. it qualified for 2016 oscars but it wasn't released until the following year, so got no buzz and did not get nominated.

 

if no one watches your movie, you'll struggle to get award nominations.

Both your name and weathering with you have to bear with that stupid strategy, releasing it for the sake of qualifying run and some film festival run then nothing else. It worked for some films but somehow it is just isn't working now. 

[Cap]

1 minute ago, Valonqar said:

can someone explain Editing to me? I'm reading on other sites that lack of Editing nom hurts OUATIH and 1917 even though they got Director nom. Apaprently, for some reason, editing nom > director nom when it comes to winning Picture. Please explain. 

In terms of Oscars, it is an old wives tales. In the past the Best Editing and Best Picture always lined up. /is too lazy to pull stats

[CoolioD1]

since 1980 the only best picture winner that didn't get an editing nod was birdman. which obviously has the one shot thing. so maybe doesn't hurt 1917. probably hurts hollywood

[Valonqar]

Thanks guys! 

[Johnny Tran]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

11 Oscar nominations with a 59 MC score

it must be a first, no ?

Audiences and industry people aren't critics with an ax to grind. Critics are irrelevant. And I'm happy for that.

[Avatree]

12 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

can someone explain Editing to me? I'm reading on other sites that lack of Editing nom hurts OUATIH and 1917 even though they got Director nom. Apaprently, for some reason, editing nom > director nom when it comes to winning Picture. Please explain. 

It's a load of rubbish, I just checked the past 20 years of how directing and editing correlate vs best picture, and there's no correlation particularly on either side. There are a couple of films which only got directing, and won BP, and a couple which only got editing, and won BP.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Avatree

[The Futurist]

In the last 10 years, the expanded field for Best Picture have worked wonders for blockbuster films.

Yay !

Edited January 13, 2020 by The Futurist

[Valonqar]

1 minute ago, Avatree said:

It's a load of rubbish, I just checked the past 20 years of how directing and editing correlate vs best picture, and there's no correlation particularly on one side. 

perhaps people see corelation because they want to create a predicting pattern? 

[Avatree]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Tran said:

Audiences and industry people aren't critics with an ax to grind. Critics are irrelevant. And I'm happy for that.

Critics are irrelevant, are they? Is that why every studio pays out of their pocket to show their films to critics for free?

 

Unless you're talking specifically about critics not being relevant to awards, in which case that's obviously right as most critics are not in voting bodies. 

 

Also, it's spelled AXE not AX.

[lorddemaxus]

3 minutes ago, Avatree said:

It's a load of rubbish, I just checked the past 20 years of how directing and editing correlate vs best picture, and there's no correlation particularly on either side. There are a couple of films which only got directing, and won BP, and a couple which only got editing, and won BP.

 

@CoolioD1 literally showed the correlation a few comments before you posted this lol

[filmlover]

27 minutes ago, Giesi said:

I know Spirit isn’t the most memorable song, but holy shit, you had the opportunity to broadcast a live Beyoncé performance on your show and you said just „nope“.

The Academy and the producers of the show are two completely separate groups. The Academy nominates whoever they like, while it's up to the producers of the telecast to set up everything (presenters, performers, etc.) based on who/what is nominated.

[MrGlass2]

3 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

In the last 10 years, the expanded field for Best Picture have worked wonders for blockbuster films.

Yay !

Not really: of the top 10 at the domestic box office, only one was nominated for Best Picture (+ one for Best Animated).

 

The gap between blockbusters and the Oscars is greater than ever. The new #1 at the worldwide box office only got one miserable VFX nomination? Long gone are the days of Titanic and ROTK, or even Avatar...

 

Bring back the People's Choice Oscar idea?

[FilmBuff]

Hmm that’s curious about La La land. The whole backlash thing. La la land was not only one of my favorite movies of the year it came out, but also in my top movies of this decade. There hasn’t been a movie that has been as good as the one I’ve seen in the years since it came out, and I’ve seen a ton of movies in the theater. Still felt like it was robbed by moonlight.

Edited January 13, 2020 by FilmBuff

[Johnny Tran]

5 minutes ago, Avatree said:

Critics are irrelevant, are they? Is that why every studio pays out of their pocket to show their films to critics for free?

 

Unless you're talking specifically about critics not being relevant to awards, in which case that's obviously right as most critics are not in voting bodies. 

 

Also, it's spelled AXE not AX.

 

7 minutes ago, Avatree said:

Critics are irrelevant, are they? Is that why every studio pays out of their pocket to show their films to critics for free?

 

Unless you're talking specifically about critics not being relevant to awards, in which case that's obviously right as most critics are not in voting bodies. 

 

Also, it's spelled AXE not AX.

It's spelled both ways. 

[titanic2187]

4 minutes ago, FilmBuff said:

Hmm that’s curious about La La land. The whole backlash. La la land was not only one of my favorite movies of the year it came out, but also in my top movies of this decade. There hasn’t been a movie that has been as good as the one I’ve seen in the years since it came out, and I’ve seen a ton of movies in the theater. Still felt like it was robbed by moonlight.

I prefer Moonlight over La la land. 

 

La la land peaked with last 10min while Moonlight was sharper overall and more consistent throughout.

[filmlover]

Also cool to see that Saoirse Ronan is now up to 4 nominations at just 25 years old. That romantic drama with Kate Winslet sounds like it'll extend it to 5 next year.