Movies: The 2023 Academy Award and the winner is GOONIES NEVER SAY DIE

[beowulf]

Academy has a stupid rule that sequels are considered adaptations. Happened with the Before movies as well.

Elvis, meanwhile, wasn't nominated for screenplay, but oddly enough, was considered original in the Academy's eyes because it wasn't specifically based on pre-existing material (you know, other than a person's actual life).

Thanks for the clarification, that is kind of dumb.

 

[HanSolo]

Literally only care about Brendan Fraser for Best Actor and EEAAO winning things.

10 nominees for best picture

All quiet on the western front
Avatar: The Way of Water
The Banshees of Inisherin
Elvis
Everything Everywhere All At Once
The Fabelmans
Tar
Top Gun : Maverick
Triangle Of Sadness
Women Talking

Truly a down year.

 

[HanSolo]

Lmao ELVIS one of the only movies I watched this year where I finished and thought "Jesus christ that editing was bad"

 

[Jumptheshark]

Lmao ELVIS one of the only movies I watched this year where I finished and thought "Jesus christ that editing was bad"

I do not understand the love in with it. I did not like it

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I agree but they bought the schtick at the time and came close to giving it to 1917 as it won a lot of stuff like producers guild, directors guild and golden globe drama, it was the frontrunner until last few weeks. I think a little extra bonus of people virtue signalling by preferring first asian best picture winner helped push it over the edge, this was an example virtue signal helping the better movie, but it has also led to some questionable picks other years, I think Power of the Dog is better than CODA and La La Land is better than Moonlight.

La La Land better than Moonlight is a hell of a take. It's a hell of a take in that the former is trash.

 

[DaaaaB's]

I do not understand the love in with it. I did not like it

The Academy is just obsessed with biopics.

La La Land better than Moonlight is a hell of a take. It's a hell of a take in that the former is trash.

I almost never stop watching a movie before it's over no matter how awful it is. I couldn't even get through a half hour of La La Land though.

 

[HanSolo]

I do not understand the love in with it. I did not like it

I guess musical biopics resonate with the voters.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I guess musical biopics resonate with the voters.

Horribly edited musical biopics in particular.

Now that the dust has settled, I can confidently say that Top Gun receiving a nomination for its screenplay is the most bonkers thing to come out of today.

 

[HanSolo]

Horribly edited musical biopics in particular.

Now that the dust has settled, I can confidently say that Top Gun receiving a nomination for its screenplay is the most bonkers thing to come out of today.

It's still Elvis for editing. But that's pretty bad too.

 

[Jussi]

Horribly edited musical biopics in particular.

Now that the dust has settled, I can confidently say that Top Gun receiving a nomination for its screenplay is the most bonkers thing to come out of today.

I didn't get that either. It's basically a rehash of the first film and the main plot is ripped off from Star Wars. Nothing much original in it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Horribly edited musical biopics in particular.

Now that the dust has settled, I can confidently say that Top Gun receiving a nomination for its screenplay is the most bonkers thing to come out of today.

Banshees was my favorite movie of the year so I'm happy with the love it's received though most of that was predicted so no real surprises there.

Probably most pleased with Stephanie Hsu's nomination. Undoubtedly worthy, but I was also in the camp that thought it would've been a little odd to nominate Jamie Lee Curtis and not Hsu in the supporting actress role. No knock on the legend who is JLC, but Hsu carries a lot more weight in her role. Happy to see them both there.

I haven't seen the movies that Brian Tyree Henry or Andrea Riseborough are in so I can't speak to those specific performances but they're both actors I like a great deal so it's nice to see them nominated.

I touched on this before but I think Paul Dano missing out on The Fablemans is a bit of a bummer. Great work in the least flashy role in the movie. Joseph Kosinski would've been a worthy director nominee (and a rare nod toward action movie direction), but I ain't losing sleep over it.

Colin Farrell's my biggest rooting interest. That dude just constantly delivers no matter the material. His funny-sad and comparatively quiet performance in Banshees is the sort of acting that doesn't get recognized enough IMO. I'd probably be rooting for him regardless but the fact that his two greatest challengers also are two classic Academy Awards catnip roles with THE TRANSFORMATION (Brendan Fraser) and THE IMPERSONATION (Austin Butler), that makes me stubbornly dig in my heels all the more.

I know it's not a body of work award but Colin Farrell also had Thirteen Lives, About Yang and The goddamn Batman released this year. Hell of a year.

 

[kihei]

Have seen all of the best picture and international film nominees: Here is how I would rank them:

The Banshees of Inisherin
Everything Everywhere All at Once

Women Talking
Tar
The Fabelmans

Avatar: The Way of Water
Triangle of Sadness


Elvis

Top Gun: Maverick
All Quiet on the Western Front

International Films

The Quiet Girl
Close
EO
Argentina, 1985

All Quiet on the Western Front

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I didn't get that either. It's basically a rehash of the first film

Even with that, the first film has twice the screenplay Maverick has, whose script is basically non-existent. Which if you want to argue is part of the fun, sure, I guess I can accept that, but, the honor ends there.

I'd probably be rooting for him regardless but the fact that his two greatest challengers also are two classic Academy Awards catnip roles with THE TRANSFORMATION (Brendan Fraser) and THE IMPERSONATION (Austin Butler), that makes me stubbornly dig in my heels all the more.

At least they're split up -- there's no competing with THE TRANSFORMATIONAL IMPERSONATION. In this specific case though, Fraser is an easy guy to root for that I won't mind too too horribly if he gets it over Farrell. Still, not my preference.

If Butler wins, I riot (my form of rioting is throwing my hands up in disgust while sitting on my couch).

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Even with that, the first film has twice the screenplay Maverick has, whose script is basically non-existent. Which if you want to argue is part of the fun, sure, I guess I can accept that, but, the honor ends there.

At least they're split up -- there's no competing with THE TRANSFORMATIONAL IMPERSONATION. In this specific case though, Fraser is an easy guy to root for that I won't mind too too horribly if he gets it over Farrell. Still, not my preference.

If Butler wins, I riot (my form of rioting is throwing my hands up in disgust while sitting on my couch).

Yeah Fraser is likable so I agree it wouldn't be too bad, even if it's not my preference.

And by all accounts Butler is impressive (haven't witnessed it myself) but it's also ... Elvis who has to be one of the most impersonated/portrayed people in pop culture history. I kinda feel like half of the working actors on the planet probably have a decent Elvis in their back pocket. Hell, half the posters here probably do too.

It reminds me of Gary Oldman playing Churchill ... another oft portrayed and (at least I think) easily imitated person. Puff a cigar, grumble, shake your prosthetic jowls. I know the Oldman win has that "lifetime achievement" angle to it that Butler doesn't have, but I remain perplexed at how folks go ga ga for impersonations of people they've probably already seen a bunch of impersonations of!

Who is next? Nixon? JFK?

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

And by all accounts Butler is impressive (haven't witnessed it myself) but it's also ... Elvis who has to be one of the most impersonated/portrayed people in pop culture history. I kinda feel like half of the working actors on the planet probably have a decent Elvis in their back pocket. Hell, half the posters here probably do too.

Right, yeah -- I'm just over it at this point, ya know?

Who is next? Nixon? JFK?

Well Frank Langella did get that nom for Frost/Nixon, losing out to.....Sean Penn's Harvey Milk. Even though they both should've lost to Mickey Rourke (I also really like Richard Jenkins' work in The Visitor from that year if we're talking noms).

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Right, yeah -- I'm just over it at this point, ya know?



Well Frank Langella did get that nom for Frost/Nixon, losing out to.....Sean Penn's Harvey Milk. Even though they both should've lost to Mickey Rourke (I also really like Richard Jenkins' work in The Visitor from that year if we're talking noms).

Ha, I totally forgot Langella. But I did remember Anthony Hopkins who also has been nominated for playing Nixon. (Dan Hedaya in Dick is the best iteration FWIW).

Penn in Milk is a rare impersonation win that I somewhat defend though my stance is mostly that the real Sean Penn is clearly such a blow-hard humorless a-hole that it's an obvious acting achievement for him to pull off someone as likable as Harvey Milk.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

ANNUAL RANT ENGAGED!

If Butler wins it'll be the 12th time in the last 20 years Best Actor is given to someone playing a real person. I'm willing to throw out the McConaghey win because very few people knew the guy he played, but for the other 10 you have -- Ray Charles, Truman Capote, Idi Amin, Harvey Milk, King George VI, Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Hawking, Winston Churchill, Freddie Mercury and Richard Williams.

At least with Lincoln we don't have audio/video, so I feel like there is some genuine creation in that case, but in the other nine we have copious audio and visual records of these people. Impersonation is fine, but I'm not nearly as impressed with that as I am when folks have to develop characters from scratch.

Alright. Got that out of my system.

 

[Fantomas]

What a depressing era for movies. Just crap on top of crap.

 

[HanSolo]

Yeah Fraser is likable so I agree it wouldn't be too bad, even if it's not my preference.

And by all accounts Butler is impressive (haven't witnessed it myself) but it's also ... Elvis who has to be one of the most impersonated/portrayed people in pop culture history. I kinda feel like half of the working actors on the planet probably have a decent Elvis in their back pocket. Hell, half the posters here probably do too.

It reminds me of Gary Oldman playing Churchill ... another oft portrayed and (at least I think) easily imitated person. Puff a cigar, grumble, shake your prosthetic jowls. I know the Oldman win has that "lifetime achievement" angle to it that Butler doesn't have, but I remain perplexed at how folks go ga ga for impersonations of people they've probably already seen a bunch of impersonations of!

Who is next? Nixon? JFK?

Bale was nominated for impersonating Cheney but he didn't win.

 

[kihei]

Sifting through the noms I would say the worst snub is that Danielle Deadwyler didn't get a best actress nomination for Till.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

ANNUAL RANT ENGAGED!

If Butler wins it'll be the 12th time in the last 20 years Best Actor is given to someone playing a real person. I'm willing to throw out the McConaghey win because very few people knew the guy he played, but for the other 10 you have -- Ray Charles, Truman Capote, Idi Amin, Harvey Milk, King George VI, Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Hawking, Winston Churchill, Freddie Mercury and Richard Williams.

At least with Lincoln we don't have audio/video, so I feel like there is some genuine creation in that case, but in the other nine we have copious audio and visual records of these people. Impersonation is fine, but I'm not nearly as impressed with that as I am when folks have to develop characters from scratch.

Alright. Got that out of my system.

Louis CK is the greatest Abe Lincoln of all-time.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Christina Ricci slams Academy as 'backward' over review of Andrea Riseborough's surprise Oscars nom

Christina Ricci has slammed the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' upcoming review of nominees as "backward."

canoe.com

curious what is going on with this

 

[Behn Wilson]

Christina Ricci slams Academy as 'backward' over review of Andrea Riseborough's surprise Oscars nom

Christina Ricci has slammed the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' upcoming review of nominees as "backward."

canoe.com

curious what is going on with this

Complaints that the movie got the nod through lobbying which is against the rules. They all lobby and have for years. Big studios are complaining

 

[kihei]

Stupid, stupid move by the Academy. Like, if you are not in The Club, you have no business being nominated. This is now a lose-lose situation for everyone.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Stupid, stupid move by the Academy. Like, if you are not in The Club, you have no business being nominated. This is now a lose-lose situation for everyone.

This is the second year in a row where there's an Oscars issue/debate and I feel like the dynamics are flipped a bit either based on history and/or the general perception of what the Academy does and does not do....

I won't pretend to know the actual rules of screenings/campaigns, which seems to be the crux of the Riseborough issue, but the nomination itself of a widely respected pro's pro sorta actress in an obscure indie ... that should be a good thing! And it's the sort of thing the Academy doesn't do nearly as often as folks think they do. They're just as prone to gravitate to known quantities and big movies as anyone else.

The three actresses she most likely beat out for noms are two past Oscar favorites in Olivia Colman (3 noms, 1 win) in a tepidly received Oscar bait film and Viola Davis (4 noms, 1 win) in a decently budgeted, decently successful historical action studio pic and Danielle Deadwyler in a widely praised performance in a tepidly received Oscar-baity bio pic.

Nominating Riseborough actually bucks a lot of their traditional behavior, which again, I would argue should be seen as good!