BEST EDITED FEATURE FILM (DRAMATIC): TIE!
American Sniper
Joel Cox, ACE & Gary Roach, ACE
Boyhood
Sandra Adair, ACE
Gone Girl
Kirk Baxter, ACE
The Imitation Game
William Goldenberg, ACE
Nightcrawler
John Gilroy, ACE
Whiplash
Tom Cross
BEST EDITED FEATURE FILM (COMEDY OR MUSICAL):
Birdman
Douglas Crise & Stephen Mirrione, ACE
Guardians of the Galaxy
Fred Raskin, Hughes Winborne, ACE & Craig Wood, ACE
Into the Woods
Wyatt Smith
Inherent Vice
Leslie Jones, ACE
Grand Budapest Hotel
Barney Pilling
BEST EDITED ANIMATED FEATURE FILM:
Big Hero 6
Tim Mertens
The Boxtrolls
Edie Ichioka, ACE
Lego Movie
David Burrows & Chris McKay
BEST EDITED DOCUMENTARY (FEATURE):
Citizenfour
Mathilde Bonnefoy
Finding Vivian Maier
Aaron Wickenden
Glen Campbell: I’ll Be Me
Elisa Bonora
BEST EDITED DOCUMENTARY (TELEVISION):
Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey: Standing Up in the Milky Way
John Duffy, ACE, Michael O’Halloran, Eric Lea
Pauly Shore Stands Alone
Troy Takaki, ACE & Joey Vigour
The Roosevelts: An Intimate History: Episode 3 / The Fire of Life
Erik Ewers
BEST EDITED HALF-HOUR SERIES FOR TELEVISION:
Silicon Valley: “Optimal Tip to Tip Efficiency”
Brian Merken & Tim Roche
Veep: “Special Relationship”
Anthony Boys
Transparent: Pilot
Catherine Haight
BEST EDITED ONE-HOUR SERIES FOR COMMERCIAL TELEVISION:
24: “10pm to 11am”
Scott Powell, ACE
Mad Men: “Waterloo”
Christopher Gay
Madam Secretary: “Pilot”
Elena Maganini, ACE & Michael Ornstein, ACE
Sherlock: “His Last Vow”
Yan Miles
The Good Wife: “A Few Words”
Scott Vickrey, ACE
BEST EDITED ONE-HOUR SERIES FOR NON-COMMERCIAL TELEVISION:
True Detective: “Who Goes There”
Affonso Goncalves
True Detective: “The Secret Fate of All Life”
Alex Hall
House of Cards: “Chapter 14”
Byron Smith
BEST EDITED MINISERIES OR MOTION PICTURE FOR TELEVISION:
Fargo “Buridan’s Ass”
Regis Kimble
Olive Kitteridge: “A Different Road”
Jeffrey M. Werner, ACE
The Normal Heart
Adam Penn
BEST EDITED NON-SCRIPTED SERIES:
Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown: “Iran”
Hunter Gross
Deadliest Catch: “Lost At Sea”
Josh Earl, ACE & Johnny Bishop
Vice: “Greenland is Melting & Bonded Labor”
Joe Langford & Nick Carew
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
Speaking of editing, it seems some folks are impressed by the flashiest work, the most quick-cutting.
But Sandra Adair, the editor of ”Boyhood,” had a challenge like no other editor: dealing with 12 years’ worth of footage. In an Indiewire interview, Adair, who won the L.A. Film Critics prize, explains shaping ”Boyhood” & giving it a sense of cohesiveness, and finding seamless transitions between the many years.
http://www.indiewire.com/article/how-boyhood-editor-sandra-adair-helped-shape-the-films-12-year-evolution-20140717
Now we’ve got the “Avengers was more worthy of Oscar contention than Gravity”. DONE! I’m done. I’m done done done done…done. I can’t deal with this sort of shit. It’s too early into the new year, too late in the Oscar season, an argument coming a year too late to get into it. Good night you minions of film, you defenders of celluloid.
“If Gone Girl wins this, maybe, just maybe I can start re-thinking Gone Girl could take the Oscar.”
Without the SAG ensemble nomination? Zero chances. It doesn’t even have the excuse Selma has, of not having been seen in time…
“Have you ever heard of Oprah???”
Have you ever heard of The Butler? But, seriously, Selma is in for BP, of course – it’s just not going to win.
“Anyways, I wouldn’t mind if Boyhood did steamroll the Oscars but I would consider it somewhat unfortunate when none of his ‘Before’ trilogy (all of which I enjoyed more than Boyhood) received its due treatment.”
Yeah, same here, more or less…
“I just have one last thing to say, for the record Pete Cuaron’s Potter is often considered the worst of the bunch among fans.”
Then those fans suck.
“I’ve always thought that Dark Knight had an atrocious final act”
Has it been established that this is unquestionably true? Does nobody else (besides me) disagree with this opinion? Someone who knows more about these things (screenwriting) than I? There must be someone!…
“I would wade in here but you’re basically all wrong in one way or another so I wouldn’t know where to start.”
Ha, Paddy!
“If Boyhood is a gimmick film, then I wish more people in Hollywood would agree to work for free, I wish more studios would front money without an expected return on their investment for 12 years, and I wish it wasn’t the only film of its kind in existence. In short, it’s a great gimmick. Better than a lazy, uninspired gimmick whipped up at the drop of a hat in order to make millions.”
This! Thanks, DaneM.
If Boyhood is a gimmick film, then I wish more people in Hollywood would agree to work for free, I wish more studios would front money without an expected return on their investment for 12 years, and I wish it wasn’t the only film of its kind in existence. In short, it’s a great gimmick. Better than a lazy, uninspired gimmick whipped up at the drop of a hat in order to make millions.
I would wade in here but you’re basically all wrong in one way or another so I wouldn’t know where to start.
Why can’t you all just go back to 2014 and leave me here by myself?
If any movie, it is Selma that is safe for Best Picture and best director given the macro environment nowadays! I dont know why some people present it as a small movie, underdog! Have you ever heard of Oprah??? She is promoting and working for that movie very much! The other day i was flying down to Puerto Rico on Delta and during all flight Selma promo apprared at the corner of my personal screen. So some people are really pushing hard for it and spend a lot of money. And i am sure they will pusheven harder with MLK day coming up. So it is in. So is Ava
May I offer you guys an advice?
DON’T FEED THE TROLLS (LCBaseball22).
*Linklater’s
Boyhood is a gimmick film as much, if not more, than The Artist was. And that Linklater’s ‘due’.
And for the sake of argument yes it could be said that Boyhood’s gimmick is not the first of its kind since Harry Potter did film the same actors over a similar period of time, but it wasn’t all one film of course. Anyways, I wouldn’t mind if Boyhood did steamroll the Oscars but I would consider it somewhat unfortunate when none of his ‘Before’ trilogy (all of which I enjoyed more than Boyhood) received its due treatment. The same would be true if Interstellar happened to steamroll the Oscars as I do not consider among Nolan’s best. Both directors are long overdue though and I would happy to see either one take the prize.
Well said Ryan. It’s human to make assumptions but also important to recognise them as such. Sid Ganis said in the post-statement Q&A “I would not be telling you the truth if I said the words ‘Dark Knight’ did not come up” so it definitely played some part in the decision, but just how big a part we will never know. And goddamn it the honorary Oscar thing still burns!
Yeah, “logical” arguments. Okayy. And straw man arguments? Is that your defense for every time someone disagreed with you? What if I actually loved Nolan and said his films were spectacular and loved Interstellar? Would you still be saying bullshit or is it your own bias for him that led you to have hissy fit?
It was a noble effort and it gave us 2 great years of BP nominees. But I think the Academy old guard disapproved. I think they wanted to gerrymander things back to the kind of BP nominees the old guard understood — except twice as many.
Precisely Ryan! Thank God, someone does get it…
@Richardskin – thank you for the particularly germane information about Birdman’s sequential style. That gives me the most illuminating observation about the editing category thus far. Also reiterates my belief so far that the Oscar race is primarily Boyhood -v- Birdman; with the former looking most likely to prevail for BP/BD, but Keaton could still be the front runner in a overcrowded category of talent.
Just saying, I’ve supported almost everything with facts and figures and made very logical arguments which have been met by the all too typical and familiar straw man arguments that I’ve heard thousands of times and yet hold no more weight than they did before, so I am left having to assume that you guys just don’t get it…
I may be the only one who thinks this way, Pete, but I don’t consider Gravity a sci-fi movie. Merely a drama about a shuttle mission that went horribly wrong. That may be why it won 7 Oscars, besides their hard-on for Cuaron.
Was there ever any confirmation that expanding best picture nominees from 5 to 10 had anything to do with The Dark Knight?
Not at all, DBibby. You’re right to be skeptical. The Academy has never shown the slightest tendency to give the slightest fuck to cater to anything the “public” wants.
Literally EVERY serious Oscar-lover, all the most devoted followers of the Academy have howled in protest over the Honorary Oscars being pushed off the broadcast into a private VIP event held behind closed doors. People who care about the honorary Oscars are the very people the Academy should treasure. But has any of the outcry made the Board of Governors change their minds? Of course not. The Academy does not give in to public “demands.” They have no interest in making concessions to the public — unless they can see a financial benefit.
I do think it’s possible that a few higher-ups in the Academy’s senior ranks were beginning to wonder what it means when movies that achieve unanimous critical acclaim fail to make the BP cut while standard (boring?) traditional fare had a stranglehold on top honors.
Was The Dark Knight another good example that helped make the case for diversity by expanding to 10? Sure. Was it the last straw that finally caused a tipping point? Maybe, but doubtful, not all on its own. Was it Exhibit A in the argument? Could be, but there were Exhibit B, C, D, E too, so why lay it all at the feet of The Dark Knight?
Best reason to think the Academy was not bowing down to the power of their hard-on for Christopher Nolan? They sure don’t seem in any hurry to consummate their Nolan love.
I think primary impetus behind the expansion to 10 BP nominees was the Academy’s realization that they had an annual Awards ceremony on their hands that young people had stopped watching, stopped respecting. They saw the need to cultivate and nurture the love of movies for new generations, but that’s hard to do when all the awards winners are movies that nobody but our grandmothers could love.
It was a noble effort and it gave us 2 great years of BP nominees. But I think the Academy old guard disapproved. I think they wanted to gerrymander things back to the kind of BP nominees the old guard understood — except twice as many.
If anything, I think the new accounting procedures seem to be calculated to ERASE the diversity that 10 nominees were meant to allow. The new Academy math seems to be perversely set up to do one thing: Instead of 10 nominees that allow for a few traditional nominees and a few daring choices, the new math is designed to homogenize the BP slate into twice as many of the same old same old.
Boo hoo, no one cares if you have a high IQ
Also, side effect of being an engineer with a superior IQ, nobody understands you…
I just have one last thing to say, for the record Pete Cuaron’s Potter is often considered the worst of the bunch among fans. Take that as you will…
Hey Nick. Don’t be knocking Dances with Smurfs for having an unoriginal story…
I’m lucky enough to be seeing Selma a couple days before its wide release. I will judge it’s “snub” at that point. But from what I’ve seen there’s nothing that would make it seem extraordinary in that department.
Having said that, I may be wrong because there always seems to be a movie that I love that’s NOT nominated for best editing that should be. Such as, “Wolf of Wall Street”, “Inception”, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”… The latter being snubbed in practically every possible category IMO.
I just hope the film that wins IS the most impressively edited. At this point for me that would be “Birdman” (Having not seen ‘Boyhood” sadly) But to seamlessly edit a film that’s shot so perfectly that it actually pulls off it’s attempt at seeming like one long take is unbeatable to me. It’s as equally deserving as “Gravity” last year.
Are you serious? You just described yourself EXACTLY, to the T. Yes, please stay away from the discussion so you can shut the fuck up.
LCBA, you’re arguing that there is a genre bias by declaring that anything that doesn’t circle back to Harry Potter is an outlier, even the genre films that win Oscar ? But everyone else is wrong but you.
Your tiny little mind is not going to react to the Linklater train very well I suspect…
Of course people know what they are! They are calles PEOPLE’S CHOICE. Duh! And thats why I dont watch them because they are very biased. And actually, they do go with quality blockbusters and terrible films as well, you never seen them win anything?
LCBA, Gravity was a blockbuster film of high production and artistic quality (apart from a wobbly script). It won seven Oscars and nearly took the whole thing. What’s the problem again?
At this point, I’m surprised you aren’t arguing that Boyhood was just ripping off Harry Potter using the same actors for all eight films.
Anyways, I’m done with discussion; Pete and Nick and others are too thickheaded to see beyond their own genre biases and understand this logical reasoning.
The Avengers and The Hunger Games as BP nomination? No. They were very fun films and did make an impact to some extent. I was glad Avatar did not win BP, the visuals and direction were impressive but the story in itself was weak to me. Idc how many critics bowed down to it and I dont care what scores it had.
Nick, please stop it with the People’s Choice crap. Do people even know what the People’s Choice awards is? The Twilight films won back to back. It’s a straw man argument because the People’s Choice awards is a popularity content and does not consistently award QUALITY blockbuster films.
So, Paul, you argue that the academy hates genre/sci fi movies but then complain that Gravity winning seven Oscars is somehow a slap in the face to the Avengers?
The Hurt Locker wins were very deserved, it was a great film. Not Bigelow’s fault that Cameron actually called something Unobtanium.
Correction, five of the HP films match or exceed at least one LotR score. And of course box office wise they are pretty even as well.
Mockingjay for Best Picture????? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA……
LCBA,
Let’s flip the argument a little bit. Would the fact that ROTK winning 11 Oscars despite your belief that the BFCA didn’t care for it as much as Harry Potter indicate that the critics had the genre bias and not the voters? After all, ROTK was the highest grossing film in the world that year.
Dbibby,
Changing the Oscar voting hoping that TV ratings would go up was still an utterly reactive move that diminished the awards more than not having actors from geek films walking the red carpet.
If people want to see awards that are in their favor specifically, go watch People’s Choice. Oscars are not required to satisfy the public. And while I like the expansion of BP, the only reason they did it was because people were whining that The Dark Knight missed the cut
The Avengers WAS a more worthy BP contender than Gravity, yes. You can’t deny how much of an impact it made; a true 4 quadrant hit, a cultural phenomenon; and to get SHUT OUT of every category was a slap in the face at the genre as a whole. But we fans of quality movies are used to it. Avatar got f’d over in the stampede to give Kathryn f’n Bigelow the first woman to win a director Oscar. Which in itself was a makeup call for 2003 when Sofia Coppola would’ve won for Lost in Translation …in any other year than ’03. Return of the King…it would’ve been professional seppuku for the Academy to snub it after all the hard work Peter Jackson and company put into it. We just gotta wait until these Academy voters move on into the afterlife and be replaced by new blood who are free of prejudice against sci-fi movies. To leave Mockingjay 1 and Interstellar out of the BP mix gives the impression 2014 was a crap year for movies. And that simply wasn’t true.
So it’s not silly or anything to cry foul when quality blockbusters and genre films are overlooked time and time again, regardless if a few have set a precedent…
I’m just saying your opinion that the films have been inconsistent or not as good as LotR doesn’t necessarily hold weight (four of those btw match or exceed at least one of the LotR film scores) And that’s not Metacritic, it’s the BFCA and aside from one year all nominated films for over the past decade have had a score 85 or higher.
Pete, I originally asked if there was ever any confirmation about the reason for the expansion, and here’s some:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/movies/25oscars.html?_r=0
So this supports the argument that it was intended to give other genres a better chance (thus boosting ratings). I’ve heard the argument so often so it’s good to read that it’s based on something concrete.
Return of the King won the New York Film Critics Best Picture that year. That was the tip off that the juggernaut was on. Harry Potter ever win New York or LA?
LCBA,
So Metacritic determines BP nominees? People have pointed out a whole bunch that it’s not entirely reliable there. The lack of any plausible acting or directing nominee for any of the eight films probably made a BP run out of the question. Again, the guilds tell all.
Goddamnit, why are my comments awaiting moderation? I’ve tried it three different ways, without the link and without characters…
Gustavo,
Mystic River should have been disqualified just for Shaun Penn screaming “ISSSSS THATTTTTT MY DAAUUUUUUUGGGGHHHHTER” as the camera craned up. Jeesh, Clint had a failure of artistic nerve there.
If not for LOTR, Lost in Translation might have pulled off the win.
PETE, you’re not saying anything I haven’t heard a thousand times before as a Harry Potter fan but I don’t agree and I’ll let numbers do the talking…
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 93/100
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 87/100
Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince 87/100
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 82/100
Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire 87/100
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 84/100
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 84/100
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone 90/100
http://www.criticschoice.com/search?s=harry+potter
While I don’t think EVERY Potter film deserved widespread Academy love I do feel that some of the latter ones did at least. Especially DH2
100%
Average Rating: 8.8/10
Reviews Counted: 49
Fresh: 49
Rotten: 0
That’s something that not even Return of the King can boast :p
So, in your opinion the Avengers was a more worthy BP contender than Gravity? Gravity was a decent script away from nearly running the table last year. But those seven Oscars were an outlier? Avatar was definitely a decent script away from Cameron’s second Picture/Director combo as well (he is a lousy lousy lousy writer). Yet, there was LOTR winning the script award that year. The ONLY fantasy film to do so I might add. LOTR were definitely much better films than the average blockbuster, as shown by Jackson’s complete inability to replicate them with the Hobbit films.
Do you see the common element here? Simply being a giant blockbuster isn’t enough if it’s basically SFX and catch phrases.
Just for giggles, what film should have won that year?
Master and Commander or Mystic River or Memories of Murder or Monster or House of Sand and Fog etc.
Shall I go on?
Lord of the Rings is a great film(s) sure, but no better than any of the other quality blockbusters that people have championed over the years and the aforementioned is the only logical reasoning I can come up with for why it made it through to awards season unscatched when all the others haven’t. I also believe that if Avatar and Gravity were not in 3D people wouldn’t have orgasmed so hard over these films and they might have befallen the same fate as other sci-fi and fantasy films. Again, a few examples that buck the trend does not mean the trend no longer exists. These are basically just outliers…
Dion,
Fine. Expanding the BP field to 10 had never been on anyone’s radar ever, and then all of a sudden they rammed through the most radical change to the nominations in decades. Coincidentally the year after the Nolan/Dark Knight freak out. It was a very reactive move, so what in your opinion was it a reaction to?
LCBA,
I don’t follow you’re argument. You accuse the Academy of having genre bias and then dismiss a gigantic genre win by LOTR as nostalgia for a series of genre books? Since the LOTR books only really took off in the 60s for most readers, the childhood argument doesn’t seem plausible. For the most part, the Harry Potter movies were inconsistent, ranging from great (Curaon) to disposable (Newell) to decent (Yates) to gawdawful (Columbus). However, if it makes you feel better, Cuaron’s exemplary work on the third film arguably saved that franchise and the extra billions of dollars Warner made from not having to reboot/recast the series after the artistically disastrous first two films probably scored him a few points in the industry when campaigning for Gravity.
You say connecting the dots, I say erroneous assumptions and confirmation bias.
And Jesus Christ, I’m not saying Lord of the Rings wasn’t deserving, I’m saying it’s a cop-out to throw it out there to defend the Academy of not holding bias. I strongly believe the only reason Lord of the Rings made it through the gauntlet was because it was a story from their childhood for the majority of the voters, whereas Harry Potter was thrown aside because it was something new age that their grandkids loved but they didn’t get….
No way in hell would I have nominated the Avengers for Best Picture. It was a fun picture, but broke no new ground. Besides, none of those quality blockbusters were/are never going to crack the Top Five for Directing and almost never get Acting Nods. Without those nominations, Best Picture is a fruitless argument.
Dion, since the field was expanded literally the year after the Dark Knight “controversy” one doesn’t have to be too observant to connect the dots.
For fuck sakes, stop it with The People’s Choice Award straw man argument! Myself and others are talking about QUALITY blockbuster films here, not Twilight! Talk about missing the forest for the trees…
LOTR was a nostalgia pick? That was far and away the best film of the ones that were nominated that year. You whine about genre bias and then ignore that a gigantic GENRE film won 11 Oscars? Which is it?
Just for giggles, what film should have won that year?
As for the median age of the voters, you’re talking about voters who in their prime were working during the 70’s golden age. People who cut their teeth on Copolla and Scorcese and Altman.
Was there ever any confirmation that expanding best picture nominees from 5 to 10 had anything to do with The Dark Knight? I have never read anything from the Academy to suggest this, and yet ever since people bitch about fantastic indie films (which really benefit from the recognition) taking slots that were supposed to be for Interstellar/Guardians of the Galaxy/Harry Potter/’insert blockbuster that was surprisingly not terrible here’. I couldn’t care less whether less people will tune in because AMPAS have actually seen and champion great films outside the 5 or so blockbusters the general public seem to go to.
LCBA,
Do you honestly believe that XMen and Captain America are deserving of Best Picture nominations? It’s not the People’s Choice Awards, it’s the Oscars. Used to be a meaningful award until Chris Nolan fans threatened to hold their breath until they turned blue.
“To assert that Hunger Games and Avengers not making the final nomination list for Best Picture is a sign that the Academy doesn’t get it is missing the forest for the trees.”
Lord of the Rings was a nostalgia pick and a few outliers does not usurp the fact that the fogies (and yes they are old fogies; isn’t the average age over 60?) have genre biases…
Nolan’s ‘problem’ is Francis Lawrence’s ‘problem’ with Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the same ‘problem’ Joss Whedon was burdened with (The Avengers). They make movies that connect with critics and fans, make a mint the equivalent of Fort Knox, and then the old fogies in the Academy membership show their genre bias by freezing both movies out of not just the BP race, but the Oscars practically altogether.
AMEN!
Though you forgot the most heinous snub that was Harry Potter’s finale. I’d add Star Trek and few others to that list as well…and this year we’ve got at least four quality blockbusters that will surely join the group: X:Men, Apes, Edge of Tomorrow, and Captain America. All of which are among the Top 100 Sci-Fi/Fantasy on RT- http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/top_100_science_fiction__fantasy_movies/?category=14
I personally really like the expanded field for BP Oscar. The more. the merrier. If it is about a celebration of film and the best in film; if they can’t find a prestigious list of 10 out of some 300 released every year in any given country….. It is still a pretty exclusive group, (movie wise). AMPAS may not think they are handing out any significance for anyone other than themselves, but a mere inclusion of a title in a category will mean it will be discovered by movielovers the world over. Likewise a field of 5 in acting is too thin.
Paul Hanlin,
1. Hitchcock did direct a Best Picture winner. Give him that. Not having an Oscar list on hand, not sure which of his five nominations should have been a win. I don’t recall an Ordinary People/Raging Bull kind of snub there.
2. The Reader won nothing else, so Daldry’s choice of a Holocaust film didn’t actually win HIM anything. Bad analogy.
3. Still don’t get the hostility to Beasts’ nominations. We whine every year about Oscar-bait films like Crash or King’s Speech or the Reader, but then whine that films that actually try to do something different impress enough voters to make the final cut? It’s as if movie blog commentators really don’t know what they want?
4. Before we complain of old fogey-ism, these are the same voters that gave BP to a black and white French silent film, a musical, a Bollywood imitator, and a third part of a Fantasy trilogy in the last fifteen years. Last year, a sci-fi film with literally a two person cast won seven Oscars and nearly the big prize. To assert that Hunger Games and Avengers not making the final nomination list for Best Picture is a sign that the Academy doesn’t get it is missing the forest for the trees. Hell, Richard freaking Linklater is about to win Best Picture/Best Director.
I actually agree that expanding the Best Pic field has cheapened the category and I also agree that the 3rd act of The Dark Knight lessens the overall impact of the film (I do not consider it one of Nolan’s masterpieces if only for this reason) however, if it gives quality mainstream films that the public has actually embraced at least a glimmer or hope I’m all for it :p
LCBA,
Criminy, you too? “Such and such director is far too ABOVE IT ALL to care about Oscar”. Nolan tries SOOOOOO hard to make “important art” that his films no longer breathe. Seriously, he shouldn’t try so hard. Linklater is basically ambling his way to multiple Oscars on a 2 million dollar shooting budget.
By the way, trying to write coherent third acts isn’t actually “pandering” to Oscar voters, it’s a sign of being a good writer.
Or, Pete, he just has to follow the advice of Kate Winslet in an episode of one of Ricky Gervais’ prior TV series. Make a Holocaust movie and then Nolan will finally get his gold. The Oscar membership simply has it in for Nolan like they had it in for Hitchcock for reasons surpassing all understanding.
And BOTSW was one of the most eyepopping acid trips of a movie to ever be nominated for Oscar. Nolan’s ‘problem’ is Francis Lawrence’s ‘problem’ with Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the same ‘problem’ Joss Whedon was burdened with (The Avengers). They make movies that connect with critics and fans, make a mint the equivalent of Fort Knox, and then the old fogies in the Academy membership show their genre bias by freezing both movies out of not just the BP race, but the Oscars practically altogether.
LCBA,
I have said this over and over, but it’s time to go back to five nominations. Every other category save for a few minor technical nods and song have five. Moving to 10 nominees has simply made the arguments more nonsensical, especially since the guild nominations pretty much tell everyone who the top five really are fairly reliably.
I’ve always thought that Dark Knight had an atrocious final act and if not for Ledger’s passing, more critics would have been willing to point out that giant gaping flaw in the movie.
Anyways, Nolan isn’t pandering to the Oscar committee and why should he? Hitchcock and Kubrick never won an Oscar either. In some ways it is more a badge of honor to not be nominated or win. At least the DGA knows what’s up…
PETE, I’m not saying it was undeserving, I didn’t even cross check the list of nominations. I’m just making a point that although the expansion of the Best Pic category was supposedly influenced by The Dark Knight snub these extra spots have yet to go to a genre film of this sort and are more likely filled by indies and small budget films, especially since the ballot procedures were changed. It’s telling that there has not been an animated film in the mix since 2010 as well…
LCBaseball,
I’m not sure why you thought Beasts of the Southern Wild was an undeserving beneficiary of the “extra slot” that was supposed to go to that year’s equivalent of a Batman film. Beasts got nominations for Script, Director, and Actress for crying out loud. Under the old system, with those three nominations a Best Picture nod wouldn’t have been that outrageous a notion.
I think the Academy badly erred in expanding the Best Picture lineup to appease the tantrum throwing Nolan fans. He wants an Oscar so badly? Tell him to learn how to write final acts for his films. Better yet, maybe he should hire a writer who knows how to do so. It’s easily his most annoying quality apart from his “tell don’t show” style of storytelling. When he stops trying so hard for Oscar, he might accidentally win one.
Nightcrawler and whiplash ate surprising. Boyhood is in contention
Happy for gone girl and the grand Budapest hotel.
So my question is just exactly what does a genre film like these have to do to receive a nomination?! To withstand throughout the year and not just be written off as a summer movie. Harry Potter’s mistreatment tells us that an 87 Metascore and 100% Top Critic approval isn’t enough apparently. Neither is big box office unless the film is original like Inception or in 3D like Avatar and Gravity…
To those who feel that any scene of Alan Turing showing any affection for another man (i.e., kissing, making love) would’ve been out of place in ”The Imitation Game” because ”it isn’t about his sexuality,” I offer the copy from what looks like the movie’s newest banner ad: ”Alan Turing and his team broke the German Enigma Code and saved millions of lives during World War II. Rather than be recognized as a hero, he was persecuted for his sexuality.”
So yes, ”The Imitation Game” wants to play on the audience’s sense of ”injustice” and outrage in voting to remember Alan Turing as a gay hero. But as for actually showing Turing expressing himself as a gay man in love, forget it. In 1894, homosexuality was called ”the love that dare not speak its name” by Lord Alfred Douglas, Oscar Wilde’s lover. Now, 120 years later, it is ”the love that dare not show itself on-screen,” at least not in this Turing biopic.
Last May, ESPN broadcast Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend in celebration of hearing he’d been drafted by the St. Louis Rams. It raised a ruckus. The Huffington Post did a poll: 60% of Americans approved of the idea of signing an openly gay athlete, but 47% felt it was ”inappropriate” to show Sam kissing his guy. Only 36% deemed it ”appropriate.” In essence, Americans are mostly OK with gays, but they don’t want to see gays being gay. If Sam had been kissing his girlfriend, you can bet this would’ve been a non-issue. One can only wonder if the gay sex scenes in ”Brokeback Mountain” torpedoed its Oscar for Best Picture. Academy voters like Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine boasted that they would not even watch the movie, let alone vote for it.
I mean when The Dark Knight was the 2nd best reviewed film of the year and didn’t make the cut and then after the expansion cream of the crop Blockbusters like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and The Avengers both received unanimous praise but were then written off as summer movies that never stood a real chance at major award consideration we’ve got a problem…
“These are called the Academy Awards, after all, and not the People’s Choice Awards.”
And there’s the other common straw man argument. Look it’s not like we’re asking the Academy to recognize the Twilight movies. We’re asking them to recognize QUALITY films that just happen to be popular with the masses. Sure things have got a bit better since the expansion of the Best Pic category but there’s no denying the Academy still holds genre biases and no often than not the extra slots that were intended to go to films like The Dark Knight go to films like Beasts of the Southern Wild and Nebraska. The Oscars look poised to once again basically be a re-run of the Spirit Awards…
Chris138, I loved Interstellar’s editing…the script had it’s faults as I’ve always felt. One of the most riveting scenes of the year for me was Cooper docking into the spinning station.
Gone Girl is surely in for Picture, Director, Editing, Actress and Adapted Screenplay.
And Rosamund Pike may surprise everyone. Haven’t seen Cake or Still Alice yet, but Pike is depths ahead of Jones and Witherspoon. Not even close.
People really think Interstellar deserved an editing nod? I liked the film, but I thought the script and editing were two of its biggest drawbacks. It’s certainly nowhere near as impressive as what Lee Smith did on Inception, which truly did deserve an editing nod from the Academy.
Also, just to throw my two cents in about whether the Oscars should reflect popular taste; I don’t think they should. These are called the Academy Awards, after all, and not the People’s Choice Awards. They’re meant to reflect the tastes of, you know, the Academy. Sometimes their tastes align, other times they don’t. That’s like saying that the critics groups should be voting for popular films that the public liked and not their own collective tastes. It just wouldn’t make much sense or reflect their honest opinion. After all, Academy members work in the industry and they are essentially telling the public what they believe to be the best achievements of the year, so one presumes their taste in quality filmmaking is pretty good (most of the time).
“The thing is, Baseball, The Academy doesn’t.care that much about what makes the public happy”
And as many would argue, perhaps they should? Films are made for the public afterall and if they continue to ignore the input of target audience the Academy will further lose significant and importance to anyone but themselves as the ratings of their telecast continue to dwindle…
Jesus, I submitted that comment way too quickly and committed far too many typos…
Also, it really gripes me how quick people are to call people Nolan “fanboys”, sure there are some vocal supporters, but the same could be said of Hitchcock, Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorsese, Fincher, etc. These guys attract a following and are revered because they make great films, nothing more nothing less. And I for one am a Nolan fan more for his films that do not include a caped crusader…
The thing is, Baseball, The Academy doesn’t.care that much about what makes the public happy (tbh. I wouldnt either). I dont know why you chose to play Devil’s ad but whatever
LC, to me even though they have the same score Inception and Interstellar are both great and falter for different reasons. Inception had a better script but wasn’t too emotional where the exact opposite is true for Interstellar. Inception was that movie where “we haven’t seen shit like that before”. There really wasn’t a high concept movie like that other than Inception that year so it was easier for it to get in. Interstellar did a lot of things we haven’t seen before but I think it’d have a much better chance if Birdman (another, “haven’t seen shit like that before”) wasn’t in as well as if Gravity didn’t come out last year.
Just playing devil’s advocate. Those who dismiss the box office numbers fail to acknowledge the other figures. No, Interstellar is not as much a shoo-in as Inception was (94 BFCA, #2 on CriticsTop10, and appeared throughout the precursors) which was also a bit divisive and has the same Metacritic score even, but it’s also not unfathomable to suggest that it makes the cut and would be a deserving nomination. The public at least would seem to approve and a good handful of critics too I would say looking at the reviews it received and thge top 10 lists.
Y’all gotta see me I’m supposed to be doing inventory and I’m grinning and bobbing in my chair out of excitement. But really though, I needed a laugh after all this bs talk. Paddy, what you said about Nolan’s name being attached and somehow the crafts should be better was spot on.
Geez, I knew the handwring of the Nolan fanboys would come down just as nasty as the Fangelina’s regarding Unbroken.
FUCKING A YESSSS! Okay now to do some real damage! Thanks, friends!
Steven! Replace the brackets with ‘greater than’ / ‘less than’ symbols! You’ll have it cracked!
Okay, figured that. I was a little confused.
shoot me now
Is GOTG getting in at PGA? Perhaps WGA?
or…
sarcasm
I’m British #sorrynotsorry
Bah fucking humbug I’ll get it one of these days. Ryan please delete those posts!
Okay, and you brought up reviews and box office and lists…….. Okay?
[i] just another test [/i]
Steven, I’ve finally found something useful.
http://pd.clcillinois.edu/docs/basic_html.pdf
I use the letters “em” instead of just an “i”, works the same.
Gustavo, my instructional comment got fucked too. This article is fast on its way to becoming the most popular post in AD’s history based solely on our failed attempts to help Steven out fs…
NICK, you asked what other factors…
Paddy, um is that supposed to be an insult or compliment to those two films or…….
Take out all the asterisks and put that before the part of your post you want in italics, Steven.
Same process, just for after the relevant part. Anything after this will be in standard script.
Between , I meant.
Damnit, this is hard.
Baseball, no one is denying that. I’m just saying I just didn’t find it outstanding. Is there anything wrong with that? No? Okay.
Steven Kane:
to begin italicized comment, write the letters “em” between .
After you’re finished, write “/em” between .
It’s as if the Academy this time will be honoring films that are seen by the least amount of people as humanly possible, with maybe Gone Girl to toss a bone to the moviegoers (Boyhood, Birdman, Whiplash, Imitation Game, Theory of Everything, etc.). NPH is going to have to be legen, wait for it, dary indeed to sell this lemon of a lineup to mainstream America.
Oh yeh, cos no-one’s seen Unbroken. Nearly $70 million in eight days? Pull it from screens, Universal, cos nobody’s watchin it!
Into the Woods? Crept pats $70 million in the same time frame, and I mean CREPT!
Meanwhile, The Imitation Game scored three weekends’ per-theatre averages over $30k in limited release before it began its nationwide expansion. What. A. Dud.
Mainstream America has an average IQ of 100, sees a few generic blockbuster movies a year with scant regard for quality and elected George W. Bush president for eight years. Mainstream America can go fuck.
Damn it! I can’t do it lmao
Thisisjustatest
The facts of the matter are this: Interstellar is a highly divisive film but you can’t deny it has performed admirably with the critics and public alike
CRITICS (there was a vocal minority who gave low scores, thumbs downs, etc but basically 3 out of 4 at least liked if not loved the film)
80 BFCA score
74 Metascore (including 8 reviews of 100)
73 Rotten Tomatoes
AFI Top 10 Film
#17 on CriticsTop10 (8th among the pundit’s Best Pic contenders)
GENERAL PUBLIC
8.9 IMDB score (#16 on Top 250)
#2 ranked film for 2014 on Flickchart
7.9/10 on Letterbox’d (#17 for 2014, 8th among BP contenders)
$180 Million in Domestic sales (Top grossing ORIGINAL and non-animated film of the year) and $650 Million Worldwide
Obviously, my trying to help him is not working.
I gently ask Ryan to delete my above posts and help the guy. Sorry.
Damn, I meant:
To post things in italic, use your post .
That’s what I mean by delusional fans. “Omg, how dare you say Christopher Nolan or Stanley Kubrick or Steven Spielberg is not fantastic?” Why should Interstellar be an automatic shoo-in just because of Christopher Nolan and just because he directed your favorite superhero movie or Inception? Maybe in your opinion but not mine.
To post things in italic, use your post without spacing.
The ACE voters believe a movie directed by Damien Chazelle (who?) is better edited than a movie directed by Christopher Nolan.
kk now I’m enraged. Who cares who Damien Chazelle is? So what if he’s a debut director? Christopher Nolan was one once. Every fucking director was one once. He’s a debut director who’s made a film that currently ranks among the best-reviewed of the entire year of 2014, so he’s obviously fucking talented, so who gives an actual fuck if you’ve heard his name before?
And regardless of that, there’s also the rather enormous detail that Damien Chazelle isn’t an editor, and neither is Christopher Nolan. By the logic that Christopher Nolan is a better-established director than Damien Chazelle and thereby ought to see his film nominated for more categories whether he’s the nominated party or not, then we’ll need to scrap that Oscar for J. K. Simmons because Michael Caine needs another one, quick!
Fuck Belle’s Costume Design Oscar nomination too, then. Or Into the Woods’. Interstellar’s cargo pants and caps must be shoo-ins because CHRISTOPHER NOLAN!!
Sorry, Citizenfour. Tough luck, Life Itself. Not today, Jodorowsky’s Dune. Interstellar’s gonna win Best Documentary because MONEY!!
I wish I knew how to post things in italics…the first and last line are mine in my previous comment.
You guys are misunderstanding me. I didnt say everyone who loves it is deluded, only the ones who cannot handle criticism and treat the film as if it is some God. Just look at what they did in IMDB. Other than that, its fine to love the film. Dont try to treat me like a villain on this topic because I wasnt in love with it
LC, my response was to Paul Hanlin Jr. who posted:
“Whiplash was a better film.”
Whiplash: $5,457,900
Interstellar: $179,389,000 domestic; $650m worldwide.
Can’t argue with that pretzel logic. 😐 Only in the eyes of critics. Not critics AND fans.
So my attention span and logical reasoning are fine, thank you.
It will be akin to the Miracle on Ice if Interstellar gets a Best Picture nomination now. It’s as if the Academy this time will be honoring films that are seen by the least amount of people as humanly possible, with maybe Gone Girl to toss a bone to the moviegoers (Boyhood, Birdman, Whiplash, Imitation Game, Theory of Everything, etc.). NPH is going to have to be legen, wait for it, dary indeed to sell this lemon of a lineup to mainstream America.
I said DELUDED fans. And yes, some critics can be very biased. Critics are not always the source to rely on when it comes to some films.
It was a good movie but was not spectacular. I only meant that just because box office is successful that doesnt always mean the film is great. And deluded fans do not help that.
Um, yeah. Interstellar is not spectacular in your opinion. Others happen to think it is. There are fans of this film who are not “deluded”.
It’s one thing to ridicule clueless fanboys spouting nonsense (“Damien Chazelle, who??”), it’s another to assume any person who admires the film is a looney.
NICK, I suppose the number of the critics who have declared it spectacular are “deluded” as well? *rollseyes*
What “other” factors?
Baseball, doesn’t matter to me. It was a good movie but was not spectacular. I only meant that just because box office is successful that doesnt always mean the film is great. And deluded fans do not help that.
“Box office also means absolutely nothing when deciding which movie is better. If that were the case then Michael fucking Bay is the best damn director of all time.”
*sigh* what did I tell you guys? this straw man argument rises again…
REPEAT for those with short attention spans and lack of logical reasoning: Box Office PLUS other factors (which Interstellar does have on its side) can mean something…
Gregoire, that’s the best way to describe the editing for Whiplash. “The strength of the film comes from music and momentum driven by the editing.” Yes. Yes, yes and another yes. While Interstellar was never less than majestic looking (to me at least) it wasn’t always riveting. Whiplash always kept my attention. The film had this bind on me that was more constricting as the minutes went on and by the end…it became as good as it could ever have been. As I said before, Whiplash relies far more on editing than Interstellar. Now if Whiplash got in for cinematography over Interstellar, then I’d cry foul.
The guy posted the exact same uninformed thing regarding WHIPLASH at HitFix. I can’t wait to see Guy Lodge and Kris Tapley giving him a well-deserved smackdown.
“The ACE voters believe a movie directed by Damien Chazelle (who?) is better edited than a movie directed by Christopher Nolan. The mind boggles.”
Are you kidding? Again, let me ask — are you kidding with this statement? Because Whiplash is superior in EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY to Interstellar, but most especially for its editing. (And I actually liked Interstellar.) In fact, the strength of the film comes from music and momentum driven by the editing. It’s actually masterful. Critics and awards-giving groups have chimed in and agreed.
“Whiplash over Interstellar? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
WHIPLASH?”
Have you seen Whiplash? I loved loved loved Interstellar but I loved Whiplash for completely different reasons. That said Whiplash’s editing was a bit better. We’re not talking about the editing for Hercules getting in over Interstellar. Tom Cross did some truly amazing work, especially at the end. Box office also means absolutely nothing when deciding which movie is better. If that were the case then Michael fucking Bay is the best damn director of all time. Have to look at things objectively. There’s nothing wrong with believing Lee Smith’s editing was better than Tom Cross’s, but to actually think one is head over heals above the other is missing the point of editing entirely. Editing was more crucial to Whiplash than Interstellar, just like the script was more crucial to Interstellar than it was to Whiplash.
“No one is here to deal with illogical fanboys of Nolan. That has no correlation with quality”
I understand the dismissing of box office alone, but you’ve failed to ignore the rest of the argument I pointed out. And what say you about the eight reviews of 100 on Metacritic or the fact that Interstellar has made a good showing on Critics Top 10 lists? (98 mentions, 13 Top spots)
“Nothing to add”. And that means………..
Sasha,
I’m not really sure that Fincher occupies the same rarified air of the all-time greats of film, no matter how good you think Gone Girl is (I would agree that it defies belief that Tom freaking Hooper somehow beat him at the wire in 2011). But, if in fact, he truly doesn’t care about the approval that Oscar bestows, and if it’s fine and dandy if he’s an absent or hostile campaigner, then it’s not really much of a slap in his face if Gone Girl falls short.
Either way, even if he campaigned like a good soldier, I think it’s just Linklater’s year.
Making a mint of money is nice, LCBaseball; but the acknowledgement of your peers is something every filmmaker craves for. Even those whose movies hit 10 digits in worldwide B.O.. Just ponder this for a minute. The ACE voters believe a movie directed by Damien Chazelle (who?) is better edited than a movie directed by Christopher Nolan.
The mind boggles.
You seriously called out box office? No one is here to deal with illogical fanboys of Nolan. That has no correlation with quality
GUSTAVO, I get it. I know IMDB and other sites aren’t the end all be and neither is box office return. I look at the culmination of factors and I express similar sentiment as Paul that unfortunately the audience the films are made for in the first place do not have more say in the mattter and that when a film couples strong reviews with box office success and other measures it is more often than not overlooked by the AMPAS because its blockbuster status, genre, etc
You can’t really compare Whiplash and Interstellar. One is very ambitious, one plays it safe. They live on two different planets, truly. Whiplash will never make it into the history books – even with its flaws, Interstellar will be talked about for years to come. It’s just the difference between a great and confounding director (Nolan) and a very good so far newbie (Chazelle)
GOTG, I passed on. Way too campy. TMNT was only good for its signature song, Shell Shocked. And if Saving Christmas or Atlas Shrugged 2 don’t do the deed, I hope Transformers 4 sweeps the Razzies. The imbalance that will be presented as the alleged class of 2014 in a couple weeks by the Oscars will make people hang around until the MTV Movie Awards have their say. They’ve at least tried to be balanced between indies and mainstream the past couple of years. They get it more than the Oscars do.
Sasha, could Gone Girl’s potential problem be something as fundamental as Fincher’s prickly personality and unwillingness to play the Oscar campaigning game with the ferocity of his contemporaries? Being an unwilling or bad campaigner is deadly especially in a close race. Linklater and Duvernay definitely are world’s ahead of their competitors right now in that respect.
Right, I get that. But it makes me love him all the more that he has no fucks to give on that score. Though he doesn’t have anything to lose. The last thing he cares about is approval from “them.” But it means more and there’s more at stake for someone like Ava DuVernay or Linklater. Fincher’s place in American film history is solid – he doesn’t need the Oscar voters to validate him by now.
Well the smear campaign against selma is intensifying and the media is really fanning the flames.
*sigh* All this because a black filmmaker dared to make a black film without a benevolent white saviour
If Selma misses out on DGA then its over.
The people who use box office data as a means of proving anything but popularity often forget the caveat that it is just one measure to scrutinize along with other parameters. I’m sure most inherently realize that box office data for other high grossing films such a Transformers means nothing aside from Michael Bay knows how to entice the masses to see his films. However, if you look at IMDB the ratings have been steadily dropping over the course of the franchise which indicates that moviegoers know they are watching crap. On the other hand when we look at past blockbuster success such as The Dark Knight and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 and see high IMDB scores in addition to RT, MC, and many other factors yes we can apply box office as a means to prove that these films deserved further consideration in the Oscar race…
@LCbaseball22:
According to IMDb, Serenity is better than E.T. and The Dark Knight is better than Citizen Kane.
Are people still using box-office data as a means of proving a film is better than the other? JAYSUS. Following your logic, Guardians of the Galaxy > Gone Girl; TMNT > Ida. Please.
[and I say this as an Interstellar fanboy]
@ PAUL
Well box office isn’t everything but there’s also sites like IMDB and Flickchart to support that notion
http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?year=2014
You know, I wish people would get the difference between opinion and fact. Heated arguments over personal opinions are stupid, as are the people who get offended that people don’t agree with them
“Whiplash was a better film.”
Whiplash: $5,457,900
Interstellar: $179,389,000 domestic; $650m worldwide.
Can’t argue with that pretzel logic. 😐 Only in the eyes of critics. Not critics AND fans.
Honestly, Paul, Whiplash was a better film.
“I’m starting to think that maybe Nightcrawler will get nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars.”
Al, from your lips to God’s ears.
Whiplash over Interstellar? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
WHIPLASH?
Yeah, you can’t use the critics lists to tell you very much about the Oscar race at all. If Harvey Weinstein were backing The Theory of Everything, I’d easily be able to swap that out with The Imitation Game. But he isn’t, so I’m not. So far, Imitation Game is hitting all the marks except director, but don’t be surprised if it pulls out a Best Director nomination — even if it misses a DGA one. Theory missing an ACE is, I think, a fairly significant indicator that it is not worth considering as a BP front runner, though a BP nomination is still well within reach. Would you personally put Theory ahead of The Imitation Game? I wouldn’t. I would put Redmayne’s performance up against most any other performance this year though.
We’re talking about the surplus rule here, right?
Right. I forgot the term. That’s what they call it, you’re right, Paddy.
the math has been formulated so that these key numbers — 557 and 307 — represent the maximum and minimum range (557 for a nomination guaranteed in first round, and 307 as the low-end threshold for nomination). With this math, with those numbers, there can never be 11 nominees within those parameters. 10, max.
I’m not getting into the fractions. the 307 represents a Whole Number that could very well be constructed from fractions of ballots. Thanks for clarifying (??????) 🙂
” They’re ok indicators… for a while”
Well…yes, the preferential balloting screws a lot up when it comes to trying to apply stats to predict, but the possibility is still there that things could align…
These critics’ Top 10 lists are becoming the new BFCA scores. They’re ok indicators… for a while. But critics’ opinions are about as useful to voters as their dogs’ opinions are.
“They aren’t. Nowhere near.”
I know, I realize it’s a huge assumption to make equating a sample size of critics to the AMPAS since the Academy changed their voting (prior to 2011 the BP nominees were extremely consistent with the CriticsTop10) but it COULD potentially reveal or foreshadow some interesting trends or things to come…
– 557 first-place votes on the ballot will secure a Best Picture nomination
– After a movie gets 557 votes, any other ballots for that movie are redistributed
– when the dust settles and all the excess ballots have been reassigned to 2nd and 3rd place picks, any movie that has 307 ballots in it’s stack will be a Best Picture nominee.
We’re talking about the surplus rule here, right? Or is it that all of the ballots for a film that has reached the required number for nomination are redistributed? And isn’t it so that they’re only redistributed according to their worth out of 100%? So a film that receives twice as many #1 votes as it needs has its ballots all redistributed with a value of half a vote?
My Oscar predictions after ACE:
Best Picture
Boyhood
Birdman
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash
Gone Girl
Foxcatcher
Best Director
Richard Linklater, Boyhood
Alejandro González Iñárritu, Birdman
Ava DuVernay, Selma
Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel
Damien Chazelle, Whiplash
Best Actor
Michael Keaton, Birdman
Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything
Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game
Jake Gyllenhaal, Nightcrawler
Ralph Fiennes, The Grand Budapest Hotel
Best Actress
Julianne Moore, Still Alice
Rosamound Pike, Gone Girl
Reese Witherspoon, Wild
Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything
Marion Cotillard, Two Days, One Night
Best Supporting Actor
J.K. Simmons, Whiplash
Edward Norton, Birdman
Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher
Ethan Hawke, Boyhood
Josh Brolin, Inherent Vice
Best Supporting Actress
Patricia Arquette, Boyhood
Emma Stone, Birdman
Meryl Streep, Into the Woods
Keira Knightley, The Imitation Game
Jessica Chastain, A Most Violent Year
Best Original Screenplay
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Selma
Foxcatcher
Best Adapted Screenplay
The Imitation Game
The Theory of Everything
Gone Girl
Inherent Vice
Wild
Best Cinematography
Birdman
Mr. Turner
Unbroken
Selma
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Best Film Editing
Boyhood
Birdman
The Imitation Game
Whiplash
Gone Girl
Best Costume Design
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Into the Woods
Mr. Turner
Selma
Maleficent
Best Production Design
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Mr. Truner
The Imitation Game
Into the Woods
Birdman
Best Make Up and Hairstyling
Guardians of the Galaxy
Foxcatcher
Maleficent
Best Visual Effects
Interstellar
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Guardians of the Galaxy
Godzilla
Best Sound Mixing
Into the Woods
Unbroken
American Sniper
Fury
Whiplash
Best Sound Editing
Unbroken
Fury
Interstellar
American Sniper
Edge of Tomorrow
Best Original Score
The Imitation Game
The Theory of Everything
Interstellar
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Gone Girl
Best Original Song
Begin Again, Lost Stars
Selma, Glory
Unbroken, Miracles
Noah, Mercy Is
A Most Violent Year, American for Me
Best Foreign Languaje Film
Ida, Poland
Force Majeure, Sweden
Levithan, Russia
Wild Tales, Argentina
Tangerines, Estonia
Best Animated Feature
The LEGO Movie
How To Train Your Dragon 2
The Tale of Princess Kaguya
Big Hero 6
Song of the Sea
Best Documentary Feature
Citizen Four
Life Itself
Keep On Keepin’ On
Last Days in Vietnam
Jodorowsky’s Dune
And just for the sake of completeness if these percentages could be applied to the Academy voting this is where the two respective Brit biopics would stand after round one…
Theory of Everything: 48 #1 votes
Imitation Game: 28 #1 votes
While The Theory of Everything has made fewer lists overall it is topping lists at more than twice the rate of frequency of Imitation Game…
Theory of Everything: 5 out of 55 = 9.1%
The Imitation Game: 3 out of 69 = 4.3%
This is all too complicated. The only movies I really see getting #1 votes are Boyhood, Birdman and Selma. I see Interstellar getting in for consideration but The Academy is very influenced by other awards shows/nominations and campaigns. I only see Boyhood getting over 500 votes, the others, I’m not so sure.
Sasha, could Gone Girl’s potential problem be something as fundamental as Fincher’s prickly personality and unwillingness to play the Oscar campaigning game with the ferocity of his contemporaries? Being an unwilling or bad campaigner is deadly especially in a close race. Linklater and Duvernay definitely are world’s ahead of their competitors right now in that respect.
“Al, I don’t see that happening. I think they love Boyhood too much.”
Nick, yeah probably. And I’m okay with that.
PETE wrote: “Barring a baffling DGA snub for Selma, Best Picture still is Boyhood/Birdman/Selma/one of the Britpics.”
I think we can safely change “one of the Britpics” to “The Imitation Game”. I think “The Theory of Everything” is dead in all categories except Best Actor and maybe a few techs. But in all likelihood, the power of Weinstein and “The Imitation Game” will trump “Theory” in all their competing categories. I look at the ACE snub for “Theory” as a bigger death knell than “Selma” because there is no other film like “Selma” this year; it’s gonna make a lot of people’s #1. “Theory” will finish second to “The Imitation Game” in the Brit vote. With so many people predicting films like “Nightcrawler,” “American Sniper”, “Into the Woods,” “Unbroken,” “Whiplash” or “A Most Violent Year” to eke out a BP nomination, I think “The Theory of Everything” is a major candidate to fall by the wayside. I personally hope it gets in for Best Picture because I see it being able to snipe some votes from Brit votes from Harvey/”The Imitation Game,” which I find to be a good movie but vastly inferior to my favorites, “Boyhood” and “Selma.”
“72 number ones is plenty enough to get in for the first round”
What does this mean Sasha? Is there a certain number of #1’s to survive rounds and be eligible to pick up surplus votes?
LCBaseball “If the critics are anything to go by” — They aren’t. Nowhere near.
But even for the sake of argument, 72 number ones is plenty enough to get in for the first round and then pick up surplus votes. I disagree with my pundit pals – I think they would be INSANE not to nominate such a popular, successful film. BUT it stars a woman, don’t you know.
It seems my comment is stuck waiting for moderation for some reason, so let me just simplify it down to this: Here are possible projections for amounts of #1 votes based on the sample of critics lists (and yes we know critics don’t necessarily equate to AMPAS) which could go to show why Gone Girl might be in trouble…
Boyhood- 1,400
Birdman- 371
Whiplash- 228
Grand Budapest- 181
Selma- 133
Interstellar- 123
Nightcrawler- 104
Gone Girl- 76
Gone Girl could be snubbed off the list for Best Picture because I don’t see that many Academy members putting it as their #1 film.
#1 spots on ballots are always good, but BP ballots are redistributed. #2 and #3 and #4 slots easily come into play.
The same way that it only takes 40 ballots from the editors to get a Best Editing nomination, the number of ballots to get a Best Picture might surprise you. Here’s how it works.
– 557 first-place votes on the ballot will secure a Best Picture nomination
– After a movie gets 557 votes, any other ballots for that movie are redistributed
– when the dust settles and all the excess ballots have been reassigned to 2nd and 3rd place picks, any movie that has 307 ballots in it’s stack will be a Best Picture nominee.
So it’s a little bit misleading to think in terms of “the Academy pulling an Extremely Loud” — it’s not the Academy, it’s 5% of the Academy. 5% of the Academy is 307 members this year. That’s a really small coalition, so it’s not surprising to find a group that small with niche taste.
(( Not that age has any direct correlation to taste or bold movie preferences, but Nathanial Rogers has made a list in tribute to the 100 Oldest Living Oscar Nominees — 100 living Oscar nominees are older that 84, and 45 of them are older than 90.
And there are other Academy member just as old who were never nominated for an Oscar. So right there, we can estimate at least 300 Academy are older than 80 or 85. Some of them are as a wild and adventurous as any of us, no doubt, but many of them will have movie preferences that would look like nostalgia to younger voters. ))
American Sniper and Into The Woods will get BP nods.
Al, I don’t see that happening. I think they love Boyhood too much.
Benutty,
I think you are on the money on the legitimate BP contenders. I would argue that Selma and one of the Britpics will be the other contenders. DGA is going to clear a lot of that up.
SASHA STONE
This disconnect is why my pundit friends like Kris Tapley, Scott Feinberg, Dave Karger, Pete Hammond don’t think Gone Girl will make it in. They see it like Dragon Tattoo or Moonrise Kingdom – hitting all of the guilds but not having that preferential push to get into Oscar’s Best Picture. You’re looking for films that will be NUMBER ONE with people, not just “somewhere on their list.”
And for good reason. If the critics are anything to go by then this is how the first round voting would turn out when we extrapolate the now 630 Critic’s Top 10 lists to the 6,000 Academy members in terms of the percentage of top votes among overall mentions for each respective film…
Boyhood- 1,400
Birdman- 371
Whiplash- 228
Grand Budapest- 181
Selma- 133
Interstellar- 123
Nightcrawler- 104
Gone Girl- 76
While I am rooting for Gone Girl to make the list (just as I was GWTDT) the fact that it’s only received a top spot on 8 of the 202 lists may not bode well…
Example of the simply math involved here…
8/202 =.04 or 4% Top Votes
202/630 = .32 * 6,000 = 1,924 votes
1,924 votes * .04 = 76 #1 votes from Academy members?
For me, that most interesting thing about the editing category is how it relates to to the Director and Picture fields. Isn’t it something like ‘no BP winner has not had a Film Editing nomination since 1980?’ or something? Add to that the likelihood of winning BP without a BD nomination. So, statistically speaking, in order to win BP a film needs to also have BD and BFE. Assuming that will be the case this year, and also assuming that 5 of these 11 nominees will be our Oscar BFE nominees, which of these 11 are the most likely to also show up in BD and BP? From there maybe we can narrow down our actual BP contenders to Boyhood, Birdman and what third or fourth film? (Also statistically, only 3 or 4 films a year get this trifecta of nominations).
I’m starting to think that maybe Nightcrawler will get nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Wow! Yeah, Unbroken seems sunk. Too bad about Selma’s absence.
If Gone Girl wins this, maybe, just maybe I can start re-thinking Gone Girl could take the Oscar.
Bad news for Selma, I think it will get BP nod, Interstella and Unbroken are dead
How many votes do you need in order to secure a nomination for Best Picture?
Gone Girl could be snubbed off the list for Best Picture because I don’t see that many Academy members putting it as their #1 film. Then again, I don’t know how they particularly feel about Gone Girl. It could be like Dragon Tattoo all over again because I don’t see Gone Girl having the support of the Academy as much like Fincher’s Benjamin Button did. I will say this, Interstellar and Unbroken are for sure out of the race unless the Academy decides to pull an Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close for the latter.
Sasha is correct that the guilds aren’t always direct correlations to the final Oscar nominations, but the absence of something really odd happening after the nominations have been announced and final voting begins, films that are snubbed in major guild categories have virtually no real shot at WINNING Best Picture. I’m not disputing that Gone Girl/Unbroken/Selma will make the final 10, but some of these snubs (especially Unbroken) makes the Best Picture speculations sort of Academic. Barring a baffling DGA snub for Selma, Best Picture still is Boyhood/Birdman/Selma/one of the Britpics.
Of course, if one of the Ethan Hawke songs in Boyhood somehow flukes its way into an Oscar nomination, then that is all she wrote.
Also keep in mind : When the branches of the AMPAS vote for nominees, Best Picture is the only category that uses the comnvouted system of ranking and redistribution. All the other Oscar branches use a straightforward tabulation.
The Editors branch of the Academy has only 236 members — so the number of votes needed to secure an Oscar nomination for Best Editing is 40. If 40 or more Academy member editors chose you as Best Editor, then you’re on the final Oscar ballot.
LCbaseball22:
RobertA makes the point I was trying to make. If Insterstellar can’t make the cut in a 6-film ACE field for its category, then it’s chances are even lesser when the field narrows to 5 for Oscar and it’s almost a near-lock that Birdman (from the Comedy/Musical) category will take one of those spots. Then you’re down to 4. No one is taking a nomination away from Boyhood. That knocks it down to 3 openings for Oscar. Then what about the other snubbed films that actually have a shot to win Best Picture? Selma perhaps? That’s a film I would give a better chance to than Interstellar because it will be more people’s #1 film than will Interstellar.
If Interstellar had a shot at Editing, it would have shown up here.
“I’m pretty sure PGA also uses a preferential ballot, same as AMPAS. So maybe the true test for Interstellar and Unbroken BP chances will come with the PGA nominees?”
They are the only other one but they have ten nomination slots and not five. So they have more freedom to choose. Academy gives voters five and thus, shit gets real.
@SASHA STONE
I love the editing for both Gone Girl and Whiplash–it does what great editing should–inform the tone of the film. Whiplash’s frenetic energy matches with the script and performances perfectly. And Gone Girl’s slow-burn pace matches with the satire disguised as a noir mood of that film.
I’m not too worried about Selma–it didn’t get an ACE nomination–but it’s biggest challenge is that it isn’t Boyhood. Frankly, that’s the challenge to all of the nominees–Boyhood just “seems” like the eventual winner. And if it turns out like the Social Network/King’s Speech, then we have to start looking at the Oscar “friendly” options.
“Inception was not “snubbed” at the Academy, it received 8 nominations, including Best Picture”
I know, I was referring to the Lee Smith snub specifically, which I know is considered one of Oscar’s worst offenses, along with the Nolan snub that year. I mean a Best Pic nominee up for 8 awards doesn’t just direct itself…
“Keep in mind that only the Academy has five nomination slots and a preferential ballot for Best Picture. They’re the only group that counts the way they count.”
I’m pretty sure PGA also uses a preferential ballot, same as AMPAS. So maybe the true test for Interstellar and Unbroken BP chances will come with the PGA nominees?
Keep in mind that only the Academy has five nomination slots and a preferential ballot for Best Picture. They’re the only group that counts the way they count. The surge of number one votes could push either Interstellar or Unbroken into the race despite the Eddies. The Eddies do it the old fashioned way, weighted ballot with five nomination slots, so does the DGA. This disconnect is why my pundit friends like Kris Tapley, Scott Feinberg, Dave Karger, Pete Hammond don’t think Gone Girl will make it in. They see it like Dragon Tattoo or Moonrise Kingdom – hitting all of the guilds but not having that preferential push to get into Oscar’s Best Picture. You’re looking for films that will be NUMBER ONE with people, not just “somewhere on their list.”
In regard to LC’s question about a movie missing out on an ACE nomination but still getting an Oscar editing nomination, it has happened before, obviously. Just last year Dallas Buyer’s Club missed out on an ACE nod but squeezed into the Oscar category. But Interstellar is such a big-budget, effects heavy movie that my theory is a movie like Interstellar has a better chance of getting an ACE nomination and missing an AMPAS nod (see Inception) than the other way around. The fact ACE had a tie in drama so there were six nominees and Interstellar still wasn’t one of them seems indicative. Also, other than a BP nomination from AFI, Interstellar is just not showing up (in major categories) anywhere–Globes, BFCA, SAG, ACE etc. Again, that seems like a sign of things to come.
“Huge fallacy considering that you know damn well Interstellar is a film that would only be in the running for DRAMA. That’s like the people saying Interstellar’s chances were dead after missing the cut for the 10 Globe nominees. No, it missed the cut of 5, nothing more nothing less because in what world would it be considered a comedy or musical?”
I think what people mean when they say this, though, is that certain movies that are competitors of Interstellar for a BP nomination, such as Birdman and Grand Budapest Hotel, are not competing against Interstellar when it comes to Globes or ACE. Having a separate drama category in which films like Birdman and Grand Budapest Hotel are not in the running would theoretically make it easier for Interstellar to get a nomination. If Interstellar doesn’t get a nomination even when these movies are in a different category, it seems somewhat unlikely that Interstellar will get a nomination in the same category with AMPAS, where there is no separation between drama and comedy and all films are competing in one category. In other words, today Interstellar couldn’t best Boyhood, American Sniper, Gone Girl, Nightcrawler, Whiplash and The Imitation Game with ACE. What happens when it has to compete for one of five AMPAS editing slot with not only these six films, but also with Birdman and The Grand Budapest Hotel tossed into the mix?
Not impossible, of course, but seems unlikely.
Inception was not “snubbed” at the Academy, it received 8 nominations, including Best Picture. Interstellar just looks DEAD. Unbroken looks DEAD. Surprised Guardians of the Galaxy made it there.
“If Interstellar can’t make the cut at 12, how is it going to make the cut when it is condensed to 5?”
Huge fallacy considering that you know damn well Interstellar is a film that would only be in the running for DRAMA. That’s like the people saying Interstellar’s chances were dead after missing the cut for the 10 Globe nominees. No, it missed the cut of 5, nothing more nothing less because in what world would it be considered a comedy or musical?
Adair’s nod definitely should put to rest the idea that Boyhood is too much of a gimmick to be a legit BP contender, if not the frontrunner.
WHIPLASH is the flashiest, but, GONE GIRL was the best done of this group.
Hard to pick but yeah, Gone Girl’s is CLEAN.
American Sniper is on my PGA list. We will see on Monday !
I’m also predicting it for Best Picture.
American Sniper has really great editing. That’s a challenger to Boyhood for sure.
More importantly, which of these 11 ACE nominees will make the final Oscar cut?
I’m guessing: ”Birdman,” ”Boyhood,” ”The Grand Budapest Hotel” and ”The Imitation Game.” ”Nightcrawler” and ”Whiplash” fight for the 5th slot.
Or will some non-ACE nominee, like ”Interstellar,” ”Selma” or ”Unbroken,” break through here?
LCbaseball22 –
I would say the reverse is highly unlikely because there are 12 feature films that get an ACE nomination. If Interstellar can’t make the cut at 12, how is it going to make the cut when it is condensed to 5? I agree that’s it editing chances are dead in the water. Time to remove it from the big board on the right (or drop it down to the bottom of the list).
My current guess in terms of Oscar nominations (based on the data that I’ve been receiving): Whiplash and Nightcrawler will be stealing Selma’s spotlight in a number of categories (the biggies, unless they get Guild nominations, being director and screenplay), but Selma will still be able to garner a Best Picture nod.
JourneyP, no-one is dismissing the Eddie as a small award. It’s one of the crucial stepping stones on the route to Oscar these days. Not that rules can’t be re-written – Crash won Best Picture without a Golden Globe nomination, Argo won without a Best Director Oscar nomination – but this is probably significant.
Nevertheless, as the tie that resulted in six nominees in the Drama category here proves, this is a very crowded year for Editing. Alongside those six, we have potential nominees Birdman, The Grand Budapest Hotel and Into the Woods from the Comedy or Musical category, and non-nominees such as Interstellar, Selma, The Theory of Everything and Unbroken, and outside contenders like Foxcatcher, Inherent Vice, A Most Violent Year and Mr. Turner. So the fact that any particular film might not have earned recognition from the ACE today may not necessarily spell disaster for its Oscar chances.
I’m thinking this is a three-horse race: Boyhood, Birdman, Gone Girl. Can Kirk Baxter possibly win his third Oscar for a third straight Fincher film?
Bad news for Selma, but maybe the actual drama nominees are all flashier?
I preferred Nightcrawler to Gone Girl, but they might both have to miss if Sniper and Whiplash are too flashy to ignore. The Best Picture favorite Boyhood won’t miss here, and Birdman was really well put together from scene to scene even if most of that was preconceived (I don’t know).
“Interstellar is dead in the water.”
Is it possible the reverse of last time be true? Inception received an ACE nomination but was snubbed by the Academy. How often is the opposite the case?
I’m also curious to know if the screener issue has anything to do with Selma’s exclusion from the list.
Nightcrawler continues to surprise. It keeps popping up, time and time again. I’m starting to wonder about its chances for sneaking onto the BP list.
Interstellar is dead in the water. We already suspected that, but if it can’t even get an guild editing nomination in a category that has six nominees, its chances with AMPAS look grim indeed.
Otherwise, this is pretty much what what I expected the ACE nominations to look like.
JourneyP, jinx. 🙂 You beat me to the punch by mere seconds.
I read on another site that a Best Picture winner has not missed out on an ACE nom since 1990 Driving Miss Daisy. In earlier years it happened with a bit more frequency—Terms of Endearment, Chariots of Fire. I will check to make sure this is correct.
I wonder if some people are underestimating American Sniper and Eastwood. I picked it for PGA’s list.
Just a piece of information from GoldDerby:
SINCE 1990, no film won Best Picture at the Oscars without receiving an ACE nod first.
So although ACE may sound like a small award, it’s in fact a huge, huge blow to Selma if we choose to trust the statistics.
WHIPLASH is the flashiest, but, GONE GIRL was the best done of this group.
But, CITIZENFOUR??!! WTF? The editing was the worst technical aspect of that (overrated) documentary.
Let’s hope American Sniper getting in is not a foreshadowing of things to come!
Also I’m hoping like the screen actors, the editors guild was not able to see Selma in time. Otherwise it does not bode well for the film come Oscar time.
Of course I’m excited that Gone Girl made the cut!!!
Unbroken snubbed here, like Interstellar and, gulp!, Selma!
American Sniper looking strong, Nightcrawler surprises.