Oscar Nominations thread

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Arkin was good in LMS but for something like 30 mins. of work I question the nod. Ditto for Breslin. Streep's performance was overrated and The Queen is a one-performance movie that should've just been given a nod for Mirren.

 

But if Gosling wins T-Dot is going to explode. That's the darkest of dark horses right there.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

While I think Scorcese deserves to win, Clint did a fantastic job with Letters so it wouldn't be a miscarriage of justice if he won.

 

And it'd be so funny.

 

Aside from Will Smith, none of the nominations really bother me all that much.

 

Oh I'm not saying it would be an atrocity or something, just that the scenario I layed out (director award last, Bobby DeNiro presenting) would scream "Marty's moment!", so Eastwood winning would be a huge swerve.

 

Honestly though, IF Scorcese is picked as the winner, I wonder if DeNiro would be asked to present? It would add something extra special to it.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Sacha Baron Cohen should have been nominated for best actor. But I guess it was just too unconventional of a performance.

 

 

others

Mia Kirshner/ black dahlia

steve carrell/ little miss sunshine

Shareeka epps/ half nelson, Gosling gets a lot of praise but she's great in this too.

The guy who played Tony Blair (his name escapes me right now) in the Queen was quite good.

[Ripper 0]

While I think Scorcese deserves to win, Clint did a fantastic job with Letters so it wouldn't be a miscarriage of justice if he won.

 

And it'd be so funny.

 

Aside from Will Smith, none of the nominations really bother me all that much.

 

 

What was wrong with Wills performance. I personally though his performance in ALI looked like a bad impression and none of the lines were believably performed, but I would say that although Pursuit annoyed me to no end it was a great performance.

[nogoodnick 0]

I find it interesting that Children of Men was loved by critics yet failed to make an impression on the Academy. With an estimated $72 million budget it also bombed at the box office.

[bob_barron 0]

While I think Scorcese deserves to win, Clint did a fantastic job with Letters so it wouldn't be a miscarriage of justice if he won.

 

And it'd be so funny.

 

Aside from Will Smith, none of the nominations really bother me all that much.

 

 

What was wrong with Wills performance. I personally though his performance in ALI looked like a bad impression and none of the lines were believably performed, but I would say that although Pursuit annoyed me to no end it was a great performance.

 

Nothing was wrong with it, I just think there were much better performances out there.

[Hawk 34 0]

I find it interesting that Children of Men was loved by critics yet failed to make an impression on the Academy. With an estimated $72 million budget it also bombed at the box office.

 

Didn't Children of Men just come out? Maybe it's just a case of "too late" to make an impression since all the movies nominated here have been out longer or had buzz dating over a year ago (especially Departed and Dreamgirls).

[Hank Kingsley 0]

There was a recent article in Entertainment Weekly that brought that issue up and said it hurt the credibility of the Awards. It mentioned some performances or films, like Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot, that would not have won in the current award hype structure because of their later release.

[bob_barron 0]

The average gross of the Best Picture Nominees is 48 million. I expect that to rise since I think people will start seeing Letters from Iwo Jima.

 

Children of Men's made about 30 million domestically and 30 mil worldwide. It's a depressing movie about no more babies, I don't think it was expected to do that well.

 

I don't put much stock in that EW column.

[AmericanDragon 0]

I find it interesting that Children of Men was loved by critics yet failed to make an impression on the Academy. With an estimated $72 million budget it also bombed at the box office.

 

Didn't Children of Men just come out? Maybe it's just a case of "too late" to make an impression since all the movies nominated here have been out longer or had buzz dating over a year ago (especially Departed and Dreamgirls).

 

It came out before Letters and Letters is a best picture nom.

[NoCalMike 0]

Meryl Streep in The Devil in Mrs. Prada!?! I can't imagine that role being worthy of an Oscar Nomination. It just seems like a run-of-the-mill role. Is there anyone who has actually seen the movie that wants to go to bat for Streep here? I haven't seen the movie, so I guess I don't truly have a frame of reference but the movie itself looks like a typical hollywood cheeseball comedy, and it seems like most actors/actresses are punished by the academy for doing comedies because they think it doesn't take much skill to be comedic, all of the sudden Streep is awarded with an Oscar nomination....

[bob_barron 0]

You just admitted you didn't see the movie!

 

I didn't like the Devil Wears Prada, but Streep was hilarious. She had perfect comic timing, knew how to play the bitch and was also able to make Miranda sympathetic enough so she wasn't totally unlikeable.

 

Also, it was a weak year (as usual) for Best Actress. Really can't think of anyone else who deserved a nomination.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Ryan Gosling is awesome in Half Nelson. I'm really surprised they gave him the nod.

 

They could have at least given Claire-Hope Ashitey (Kee) a Best Supporting Actress nod for Children Of Men.

 

I don't feel as though DiCaprio deserved one for The Departed, but Blood Diamond is another story, so I'm glad with his nod.

 

I'm sad to see nothing for MATT DAMON.

 

I just hope the overrated Babel gets nothing.

[Darthtiki 0]

I find it interesting that Children of Men was loved by critics yet failed to make an impression on the Academy. With an estimated $72 million budget it also bombed at the box office.

 

Didn't Children of Men just come out? Maybe it's just a case of "too late" to make an impression since all the movies nominated here have been out longer or had buzz dating over a year ago (especially Departed and Dreamgirls).

 

It came out before Letters and Letters is a best picture nom.

 

Both were out in time to be eligible

Requirements from AMPAS

Rule Two

Elegibility

 

1. Eligibility for Academy Award consideration is subject to Rules Two and Three, and to those special rules approved by the Board of Governors that follow.

 

2. All eligible motion pictures, unless otherwise noted (see Paragraph 9, below), must be:

 

a) feature length (defined as over 40 minutes),

 

b) publicly exhibited by means of 35mm or 70mm film, or in a 24- or 48-frame progressive scan Digital Cinema format (minimum native resolution 1280 by 1024 pixels, with pixel bit depth, color primaries, and image and sound file formats suitable for exhibition in commercial Digital Cinema

sites),

 

c) for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los

Angeles County,

 

d) for a run of at least seven consecutive days,

 

e) advertised and exploited during their Los Angeles run in a manner

considered normal and customary to the industry, and

 

f) within the awards year deadlines specified in Rule Three.

 

3. Films that, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category. (This includes broadcast and cable television as well as home video marketing and Internet transmission.) However, ten minutes or ten percent of the running time of a film, whichever is shorter, is allowed to be shown in a nontheatrical medium prior to the film’s theatrical release.

 

4. Eligibility is contingent on the receipt by the Academy of the following information on Official Screen Credits forms obtained from the Academy, to be signed by the film’s producer or distributor (unless waived by the Academy), which shall include:

 

a) full, complete and authentic credits,

 

b) the name of the Los Angeles County theater where the film has played, and

 

c) the dates of the Los Angeles run.

 

5. Eligibility for all awards shall first be determined by credits as they appear on the screen and/or as certified to the Academy by the producing companies, but final determination in any event shall be made by the Academy. The Academy shall not be bound by any contract or agreement relating to the sharing or giving of credit and reserves the right to make its own determination of credit for purposes of award consideration.

 

6. In the event of any dispute concerning credits, the Academy reserves the right to declare any achievement ineligible or, alternatively, to reject all claims to credit, list credits as being in controversy and withhold any award until the dispute is resolved.

 

7. The alteration of an achievement by changing a picture from the version shown in Los Angeles County, upon which eligibility is based, shall subject such achievement to the risk of being declared ineligible by the Board of Governors.

 

8. Motion pictures from all countries shall be eligible for the annual awards listed in Rule One Paragraph 3, as long as they satisfy the requirements of the other applicable rules, and contain English subtitles if released in a foreign language.

 

9. Exceptions to the eligibility requirements and methods of qualifying listed in Rules Two and Three appear in the Special Rules for the Animated Feature Film Award (see Rule Seven), the Documentary Awards (see Rule Twelve), the Foreign Language Film Award (see Rule Fourteen), the Music Awards (see Rule Sixteen), and the Short Films Awards (see Rule Nineteen).

 

Rule Three

The Awards Year and Deadlines

 

1. The required Los Angeles County qualifying run (described in Rule Two Paragraph 2) must open between January 1, 2006 and midnight of December 31, 2006.

 

2. A picture theatrically exhibited inside the U.S. prior to the Los Angeles qualifying run shall be eligible for submission provided the prior exhibition takes place in a commercial motion picture theater after January 1, 2005, and that no other form of public exhibition occurs through the completion of its Los Angeles run (previews and festivals excluded).

 

3. A picture first theatrically exhibited outside the U.S. prior to the Los Angeles qualifying run shall be eligible for submission provided the prior exhibition takes place in a commercial motion picture theater after January 1, 2005, with the following further conditions:

 

a) the film may not be exhibited publicly in any other medium for a three-month period following the commencement of its initial theatrical engagement, and

 

b) after the three-month period, the film may play in non-theatrical forms provided they are outside the U.S. (No film that is shown inside the U.S. in any nontheatrical form prior to its qualifying Los Angeles run shall be eligible for Academy Awards.)

 

4. Official Screen Credits forms may be returned to the Academy prior to the qualifying Los Angeles release, but not later than sixty days after such opening. However, all Official Screen Credits forms must be returned to the Academy by Friday, December 1, 2006.

 

5. An achievement submitted for Academy Award consideration may not be withdrawn after Friday, January 12, 2007.

 

6. Exceptions to the above eligibility periods and submission deadlines appear in the Special Rules for the Animated Feature Film Award (see Rule Seven), the Documentary Awards (see Rule Twelve), the Foreign Language Film Award (see Rule Fourteen), and the Short Films Awards (see Rule Nineteen).

[AmericanDragon 0]

I find it interesting that Children of Men was loved by critics yet failed to make an impression on the Academy. With an estimated $72 million budget it also bombed at the box office.

 

Didn't Children of Men just come out? Maybe it's just a case of "too late" to make an impression since all the movies nominated here have been out longer or had buzz dating over a year ago (especially Departed and Dreamgirls).

 

It came out before Letters and Letters is a best picture nom.

 

Both were out in time to be eligible

Requirements from AMPAS

Rule Two

Elegibility

 

1. Eligibility for Academy Award consideration is subject to Rules Two and Three, and to those special rules approved by the Board of Governors that follow.

 

2. All eligible motion pictures, unless otherwise noted (see Paragraph 9, below), must be:

 

a) feature length (defined as over 40 minutes),

 

b) publicly exhibited by means of 35mm or 70mm film, or in a 24- or 48-frame progressive scan Digital Cinema format (minimum native resolution 1280 by 1024 pixels, with pixel bit depth, color primaries, and image and sound file formats suitable for exhibition in commercial Digital Cinema

sites),

 

c) for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los

Angeles County,

 

d) for a run of at least seven consecutive days,

 

e) advertised and exploited during their Los Angeles run in a manner

considered normal and customary to the industry, and

 

f) within the awards year deadlines specified in Rule Three.

 

3. Films that, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category. (This includes broadcast and cable television as well as home video marketing and Internet transmission.) However, ten minutes or ten percent of the running time of a film, whichever is shorter, is allowed to be shown in a nontheatrical medium prior to the film’s theatrical release.

 

4. Eligibility is contingent on the receipt by the Academy of the following information on Official Screen Credits forms obtained from the Academy, to be signed by the film’s producer or distributor (unless waived by the Academy), which shall include:

 

a) full, complete and authentic credits,

 

b) the name of the Los Angeles County theater where the film has played, and

 

c) the dates of the Los Angeles run.

 

5. Eligibility for all awards shall first be determined by credits as they appear on the screen and/or as certified to the Academy by the producing companies, but final determination in any event shall be made by the Academy. The Academy shall not be bound by any contract or agreement relating to the sharing or giving of credit and reserves the right to make its own determination of credit for purposes of award consideration.

 

6. In the event of any dispute concerning credits, the Academy reserves the right to declare any achievement ineligible or, alternatively, to reject all claims to credit, list credits as being in controversy and withhold any award until the dispute is resolved.

 

7. The alteration of an achievement by changing a picture from the version shown in Los Angeles County, upon which eligibility is based, shall subject such achievement to the risk of being declared ineligible by the Board of Governors.

 

8. Motion pictures from all countries shall be eligible for the annual awards listed in Rule One Paragraph 3, as long as they satisfy the requirements of the other applicable rules, and contain English subtitles if released in a foreign language.

 

9. Exceptions to the eligibility requirements and methods of qualifying listed in Rules Two and Three appear in the Special Rules for the Animated Feature Film Award (see Rule Seven), the Documentary Awards (see Rule Twelve), the Foreign Language Film Award (see Rule Fourteen), the Music Awards (see Rule Sixteen), and the Short Films Awards (see Rule Nineteen).

 

Rule Three

The Awards Year and Deadlines

 

1. The required Los Angeles County qualifying run (described in Rule Two Paragraph 2) must open between January 1, 2006 and midnight of December 31, 2006.

 

2. A picture theatrically exhibited inside the U.S. prior to the Los Angeles qualifying run shall be eligible for submission provided the prior exhibition takes place in a commercial motion picture theater after January 1, 2005, and that no other form of public exhibition occurs through the completion of its Los Angeles run (previews and festivals excluded).

 

3. A picture first theatrically exhibited outside the U.S. prior to the Los Angeles qualifying run shall be eligible for submission provided the prior exhibition takes place in a commercial motion picture theater after January 1, 2005, with the following further conditions:

 

a) the film may not be exhibited publicly in any other medium for a three-month period following the commencement of its initial theatrical engagement, and

 

b) after the three-month period, the film may play in non-theatrical forms provided they are outside the U.S. (No film that is shown inside the U.S. in any nontheatrical form prior to its qualifying Los Angeles run shall be eligible for Academy Awards.)

 

4. Official Screen Credits forms may be returned to the Academy prior to the qualifying Los Angeles release, but not later than sixty days after such opening. However, all Official Screen Credits forms must be returned to the Academy by Friday, December 1, 2006.

 

5. An achievement submitted for Academy Award consideration may not be withdrawn after Friday, January 12, 2007.

 

6. Exceptions to the above eligibility periods and submission deadlines appear in the Special Rules for the Animated Feature Film Award (see Rule Seven), the Documentary Awards (see Rule Twelve), the Foreign Language Film Award (see Rule Fourteen), and the Short Films Awards (see Rule Nineteen).

 

I don't know why you posted that. Both Letters From Iwo Jima and Children of Men came out in December 2006 so obviously they're eligible for the 2007 (2006) oscars. I was only pointing out that Children of Men came out before Letters From Iwo Jima because Hawk 34 was wondering if Children of Men didn't have enough time to make an impression due to its late release date.

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

Little Miss Sunshine was wretched; Arkin was the only redeeming factor.

[Hank Kingsley 0]

Little Miss Sunshine was tremendous if overhyped.

 

And I just read on imdb that Ellen DeGeneres will be hosting the show. Ugh.

[Youth N Asia 0]

Little Miss Sunshine was wretched; Arkin was the only redeeming factor.

 

Definatly overrated, but I enjoyed it. The ending with the girl's routine was the best part

[NoCalMike 0]

Little Miss Sunshine kind of reminds me of Sideways, in that they were pretty much marketed as straight comedies, but there are some rather dramatic undertones to them and I think classifying them as just straight comedies, doesn't quite do them justice.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Fuck, I just noticed there was nothing for The Fountain...

 

balderdash.

[bob_barron 0]

Just saw Venus, pretty good movie, O'Toole was wonderful.

 

I loved Little Miss Sunshine. Had tears in my face from laughing the whole movie. The scene where the brother flips out made it my favourite movie of the year....until the Departed

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Just saw Venus, pretty good movie, O'Toole was wonderful.

 

I loved Little Miss Sunshine. Had tears in my face from laughing the whole movie. The scene where the brother flips out made it my favourite movie of the year....until the Departed

 

Wait a second, you found Little Miss Sunshine to be funny? Like laugh out loud funny? I really enjoyed the film (probably in my top 3 or 4 for the year) but it was more amusing and sweet than funny.

[bob_barron 0]

Yes, I couldn't stop laughing. Especially the scene in the hospital, or when they get stopped by the cop.

 

I loved that movie

[4hartthreat 0]

Add me to the list with bob for people who thought Sunshine was laugh out loud funny. Definately in my top 5 for the year.

[Red Baron 0]

I'm sad to see nothing for MATT DAMON.

 

I just hope the overrated Babel gets nothing.

 

 

Matt Damon wasn't that good in The Departed. Well let me rephrased that.

 

Matt Damon was good in the movie, just all the other actors were better.

[Ravenbomb 0]

The only problems I have with the nominations:

-Steve Carell should've gotten the nomination instead of Alan Arkin

-Children of Men should've gotten more nominatinos

-The Fountain should have at the VERY least gotten nominated for the score

 

other than that, I can't really complain this time 'round. There was even a nice surprise with Ryan Gosling getting nominated. I'm torn on Best Actor now, since I'm a big fan of both Gosling and Whitaker. I'd give the edge to Whitaker right now, since I think Gosling is going to get a lot better than he already is.

[CBright7831 0]

Pissed Cohen didn't get a Best Actor nod, but I guess he makes up for it in the Best Adapated Screenplay.

 

GO DEPARTED!

[The Niggardly King 0]

I'm sad to see nothing for MATT DAMON.

 

I just hope the overrated Babel gets nothing.

 

 

Matt Damon wasn't that good in The Departed. Well let me rephrased that.

 

Matt Damon was good in the movie, just all the other actors were better.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with that... I felt he was better than Leo in the movie...

[Man Who Sold The World 0]

Gosling (Ryan) is very, very, very underrated as an actor. Seems the only role people remember him for is The Notebook. But what really stood out for me was his role in "Stay", which I thought was tremendous in a movie that really wasn't good. Gosling getting a nod is awesome to me, because it's long overdue, that kid can act.

[treble 0]

Seems kinda mean to nominate a little girl for an award she has no chance of winning.