#481  
Old 01-12-2013, 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matchbox225 View Post
As for the 1985 year, between Kurosawa and Spielberg, the academy made the correct choice. Kurosawa should have taken the whole damn thing, but he was lucky to even be nominated.
And we have Sidney Lumet to thank for his nomination. Lumet led a very comprehensive campaign to nominate Kurosawa for Best Director that year, despite the fact that back then it was frowned upon to actively campaign for the Oscars. Judging by the overall nomination haul for Ran, I'd even guess that it probably came close to a Best Picture nomination.
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 01-12-2013, 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkeyjw View Post
And we have Sidney Lumet to thank for his nomination. Lumet led a very comprehensive campaign to nominate Kurosawa for Best Director that year, despite the fact that back then it was frowned upon to actively campaign for the Oscars. Judging by the overall nomination haul for Ran, I'd even guess that it probably came close to a Best Picture nomination.
Yeah, that's true. It definitely would have been a nominee in the expanded system.

I'm looking over the nominations for that year right now and four nominations is pretty good for that movie.

It won for Costume Design.

Out of Africa won Art Direction over both it and Brazil.

Last edited by Matchbox225; 01-12-2013 at 10:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 01-13-2013, 08:23 AM
They should think about shortening the ceremony, such as leaving out short films and sound editing, etc...the less important ones.
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 01-13-2013, 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matchbox225 View Post
Yeah, that's true. It definitely would have been a nominee in the expanded system.

I'm looking over the nominations for that year right now and four nominations is pretty good for that movie.

It won for Costume Design.

Out of Africa won Art Direction over both it and Brazil.
To think Kurosawa had only one directing nod to his name is an ugly thought.

My GG Predix
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 01-13-2013, 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
Going with Phoenix? Interesting.

I'm starting to think that Lincoln and Spielberg could take Picture (Drama) and Director. The Globes have been very kind to Spielberg in the past. I'll stick with Argo though.
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 01-13-2013, 03:19 PM
The only interesting or exciting thing about the GGs is Mark Kermode's inevitable video ripping them.
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 01-13-2013, 03:32 PM
People shit on the GGs a lot, but I've actually preferred it to the Oscars over the last couple of years. It's funnier, it's tighter, it's slightly less predictable than the Oscars (although not always in a good way), and now that TV is probably better than it ever has been, you have guys like Louis C.K., Steve Buscemi, and Bryan Cranston there. It also doesn't do that thing that the Oscars do where they are stuck in the 1930s and making bad attempts to reach a younger audience.

The awards really don't mean a whole lot, but the actual show is probably better.
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 01-13-2013, 03:42 PM
As far as television goes, the Golden Globes I sometimes think are better than the Emmy's. The proof? Hugh Laurie has a Golden Globe. He never won an Emmy. Jennifer Garner won a Globe for Alias in the show's first season. She was nominated 4 out of the show's 5 seasons for an Emmy but never won.


Movie-wise, the Globes have admittedly had some strange nominations in the past (The Tourist anyone?) but they are hugely enjoyable to watch and in the end they really aren't all that different from other awards shows.

Can't wait for the Globes tonight. Hopefully, Homeland makes it 2 years in a row and sweeps the television awards. Although since this last past season of Breaking Bad was pretty great, I suppose I wouldn't mind it if it won as well.
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 01-13-2013, 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
As far as television goes, the Golden Globes I sometimes think are better than the Emmy's. The proof? Hugh Laurie has a Golden Globe. He never won an Emmy. Jennifer Garner won a Globe for Alias in the show's first season. She was nominated 4 out of the show's 5 seasons for an Emmy but never won.


Movie-wise, the Globes have admittedly had some strange nominations in the past (The Tourist anyone?) but they are hugely enjoyable to watch and in the end they really aren't all that different from other awards shows.
The Golden Globes definitely have less of a tendency to award the same people over and over again than the Emmy's do. Repeat winners happen every year at the Emmy's, but rarely at the Globes. So that's something. Although I don't think it will hurt Claire Danes's chances tonight at all, so yeah.

And as far as movies go, they've had a lot more conspicuous nominations than the Oscars in the past, but I think a big part of that is because they sometimes struggle to fill up the Comedy/Musical categories. Their winners have been nothing to be embarrassed by, though. I mean, they picked The Social Network and Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture, which a lot of people still resent the Academy for not doing.

Allow me to go one step further and say that the Golden Globes have been more fun to watch over the past several years than the Oscars have been. Whatever you think of Ricky Gervais's now infamous first hosting gig, it certainly became much more of a "must-see" ceremony than the Oscars that year. And as much as I believe Seth MacFarlane might be a good host, do I think he'll be better than the duo of Amy Poehler and Tina Fey? Hell no.

Anyway, my predictions:

Best Picture (Drama)- Lincoln
Best Picture (Comedy/Musical)- Les Miserables
Best Director- Ben Affleck, Argo
Best Actor (Drama)- Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
Best Actress (Drama)- Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty
Best Actor (Comedy/Musical)- Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
Best Actress (Comedy/Musical)- Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook
Best Supporting Actor- Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master [This is just a feeling I have, and it could propel him to frontrunner status given he also won the BFCA.]
Best Supporting Actress- Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables
Best Screenplay- Lincoln
Best Original Score- Life of Pi
Best Original Song- "Skyfall," Skyfall
Best Animated Film- Frankenweenie
Best Foreign Language Film- Amour

Best Series (Drama)- Homeland
Best Series (Comedy)- Modern Family
Best Movie/Miniseries- Game Change
Best Actor (Drama Series)- Damian Lewis, Homeland [Although it's pretty shocking that Cranston has never won the Golden Globe.]
Best Actress (Drama Series)- Claire Danes, Homeland
Best Actor (Comedy Series)- Don Cheadle, House of Lies
Best Actress (Comedy Series)- Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep
Best Actor (Movie/Miniseries)- Kevin Costner, Hatfields & McCoys
Best Actress (Movie/Miniseries)- Julianne Moore, Game Change
Best Supporting Actor- Ed Harris, Game Change
Best Supporting Actress- Maggie Smith, Downton Abbey

Last edited by Tkeyjw; 01-13-2013 at 04:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 01-13-2013, 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
People shit on the GGs a lot, but I've actually preferred it to the Oscars over the last couple of years. It's funnier, it's tighter, it's slightly less predictable than the Oscars (although not always in a good way), and now that TV is probably better than it ever has been, you have guys like Louis C.K., Steve Buscemi, and Bryan Cranston there. It also doesn't do that thing that the Oscars do where they are stuck in the 1930s and making bad attempts to reach a younger audience.

The awards really don't mean a whole lot, but the actual show is probably better.
Well all the awards shows are fake/obnoxious/political/superficial, obviously. The difference is that with the AA's it matters, something pretty big is at stake. One can deny it ("they're bullshit!") but it doesn't matter; they're a still a huge deal despite the fact that everyone knows the Academy's many shortcomings (that's why I really liked Bill Murray's reaction when he lost: he was just like "fuck, I know this is stupid and doesn't matter in any objective sense, but fuck I still really wanted to win"). For me, that's where the intrigue comes in.

As far as the Golden Globes are concerned, it's much more of an internet awards show (something like the Indep Spirit Awards), by which I mean it's the type of thing where you just sort of look up who won a day later and check out youtube if anything particularly interesting happened. Other than that, they don't really have any importance or significance, so there's no compelling "something is at stake" reason to really hold your interest.
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 01-13-2013, 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Well all the awards shows are fake/obnoxious/political/superficial, obviously. The difference is that with the AA's it matters, something pretty big is at stake. One can deny it ("they're bullshit!") but it doesn't matter; they're a still a huge deal despite the fact that everyone knows the Academy's many shortcomings (that's why I really liked Bill Murray's reaction when he lost: he was just like "fuck, I know this is stupid and doesn't matter in any objective sense, but fuck I still really wanted to win"). For me, that's where the intrigue comes in.

As far as the Golden Globes are concerned, it's much more of an internet awards show (something like the Indep Spirit Awards), by which I mean it's the type of thing where you just sort of look up who won a day later and check out youtube if anything particularly interesting happened. Other than that, they don't really have any importance or significance, so there's no compelling "something is at stake" reason to really hold your interest.
While everything you say is pretty much true, having a Golden Globe is still a nice way of saying "hey, we like ya". The thing is, the GGs are so much fun because of the actual ceremony itself. Once they introduced the host system, it was like watching a comedy skit based around an awards show. Also, the fact that the stars get drunker and drunker as the night goes on is also super entertaining.

I'm the biggest Gervais fan so I don't think Fey and Poehler will top what he's done, but I'm sure they're going to be great. And like Bourne mentioned, having the TV guys there with where television is right now is just an added bonus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
Going with Phoenix? Interesting.

I'm starting to think that Lincoln and Spielberg could take Picture (Drama) and Director. The Globes have been very kind to Spielberg in the past. I'll stick with Argo though.
Yeah, I'm going out on a limb and picking Phoenix for the surprise win. Just cause it's the Hollywood Foreign Press peeps, and The Master has been loved in Europe a bit more, I'm thinking they will honor it in a big way by giving it to Phoenix. I'm expecting at least one big surprise and I'm putting my chips on him.

Don't think Lincoln will fair that well but I do wonder when final voting ended. Anyone know?

Last edited by DaMovieMan; 01-13-2013 at 04:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 01-13-2013, 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matchbox225 View Post
The fact is, even with those two snubs, Spielberg has still been treated much better than most other directors. The man has two directing Oscars.
Well, that's only a fact if you use the Oscars---a massively insular and embarrassingly Americentric body---as a barometer. The exhaustive, decennial Sight & Sound poll of hundreds of critics and filmmakers only places one of his films in their top 250, E.T. in the deep back-half.

His dramas are among the most self-important, pretentious, offensive works to permeate public consciousness, from the misguided and tasteless Schindler's List to the pro-war, jingoistic Saving Private Ryan. I haven't seen Amistad or Lincoln, and it's been too long on Munich. Populist entertainments are where he excels and that's not backhanded praise. I'd prefer he not stick his nose in world events, past and present, because I usually have a good idea as to how he'll handle loaded topics.

Haneke went on an interesting monologue regarding ethics in cinema at some WGA (?) roundtable, alongside John Krasinski and Judd Apatow of all people. It more or less served as a polite rejoinder to a comment made by Mark Boal with regard to the decision to portray the hunt and subsequent killing of bin Laden as entertainment. Boal was (stupidly) insisting that it was just entertainment. Anyway, I hope Haneke has a similar opportunity to talk about cinematic ethics and portrayals with Spielberg in the room.
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 01-13-2013, 05:10 PM
The Golden Globes are like the one awards show worth watching.
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 01-13-2013, 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayzlor View Post
Well, that's only a fact if you use the Oscars---a massively insular and embarrassingly Americentric body---as a barometer. The exhaustive, decennial Sight & Sound poll of hundreds of critics and filmmakers only places one of his films in their top 250, E.T. in the deep back-half.

His dramas are among the most self-important, pretentious, offensive works to permeate public consciousness, from the misguided and tasteless Schindler's List to the pro-war, jingoistic Saving Private Ryan. I haven't seen Amistad or Lincoln, and it's been too long on Munich. Populist entertainments are where he excels and that's not backhanded praise. I'd prefer he not stick his nose in world events, past and present, because I usually have a good idea as to how he'll handle loaded topics.
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 01-13-2013, 07:04 PM
My official picks for tonight's Golden Globes...will check back later to see how I did!

Drama-Argo
Musical or Comedy-Les Miserables
Actor(Drama)-Daniel Day-Lewis
Actress(Drama)-Jessica Chastain
Actor(Musical or Comedy)-Hugh Jackman
Actress(Musical or Comedy)-Jennifer Lawrence
Supporting Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio
Supporting Actress-Anne Hathaway
Director-Ben Affleck
Screenplay-Lincoln
Song-Skyfall
Score-Life of Pi
Animated Film-Wreck-It Ralph
Foreign Film-Amour

Drama-Homeland
Musical or Comedy-Modern Family
Mini Series or Made for TV Movie-Game Change
Actor(Drama)-Damian Lewis
Actress(Drama)-Claire Danes
Actor(Musical or Comedy)-Louis C.K.
Actress(Musical or Comedy)-Julia Louis-Dreyfuss
Actor(Mini Series or Made for TV Movie)-Benedict Cumberbatch
Actress(Mini Series or Made for TV Movie)-Julianne Moore
Supporting Actor-Max Greenfield
Supporting Actress-Maggie Smith
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 01-13-2013, 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayzlor View Post
Haneke went on an interesting monologue regarding ethics in cinema at some WGA (?) roundtable, alongside John Krasinski and Judd Apatow of all people. It more or less served as a polite rejoinder to a comment made by Mark Boal with regard to the decision to portray the hunt and subsequent killing of bin Laden as entertainment. Boal was (stupidly) insisting that it was just entertainment. Anyway, I hope Haneke has a similar opportunity to talk about cinematic ethics and portrayals with Spielberg in the room.
I saw that interview, and Haneke was really the only one in that group who came across as intelligent (I saw someone else accuse him of being pretentious and snotty, but to each his own). Anyway, Mark Boal's comment really baffled me, and it baffles me even more so now that I've seen Zero Dark Thirty. If he really thinks that the movie is just entertainment, then why on earth did he seem to purposefully avoid every opportunity to inject any emotion or artistic perspective into the script? I get that it was going for a journalistic, objective approach, and I suppose that's fine, but if that's the route you're taking your film, you can't claim that it's "just entertainment."

Also, I agree that Spielberg is at his best when he's making populist entertainment and not serious historical/political dramas. I actually do like Schindler's List and Munich, but I still don't think they're nearly as good as E.T., Jaws, or Close Encounters. Like you said, it's not a backhanded compliment to say he's better at that kind of thing; he's really good at it, and arguably even the best at it. While I wouldn't say I disliked Lincoln, I also can't claim to particularly like it either, and since you seem even less taken by his dramatic work than I am, I'd imagine you'd probably do best to avoid it.
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 01-13-2013, 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkeyjw View Post
I saw that interview, and Haneke was really the only one in that group who came across as intelligent (I saw someone else accuse him of being pretentious and snotty, but to each his own). Anyway, Mark Boal's comment really baffled me, and it baffles me even more so now that I've seen Zero Dark Thirty. If he really thinks that the movie is just entertainment, then why on earth did he seem to purposefully avoid every opportunity to inject any emotion or artistic perspective into the script? I get that it was going for a journalistic, objective approach, and I suppose that's fine, but if that's the route you're taking your film, you can't claim that it's "just entertainment."
I haven't seen the interview myself but I wouldn't be surprised that Boal was just intimidated or something, or he just completely missed the point, because him and Bigelow stand by the idea that the film is more live-action journalism or reporting than just entertainment. Seeing the film, knowing about the research, just watching the beginning of the bloody thing you know it's not just entertainment...far from it actually.
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 01-13-2013, 08:23 PM
So happy that Christoph Waltz won!


Go Damian Lewis! So deserving, he's amazing in Homeland!


So happy Homeland continues to sweep. It really is the best show on television!

Last edited by ilovemovies; 01-13-2013 at 08:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 01-13-2013, 08:39 PM
It's not really.
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 01-13-2013, 08:44 PM
Yeah, I like Homeland, but would have much preferred Boardwalk Empire or Breaking Bad to have beaten it.
Reply With Quote
  #501  
Old 01-13-2013, 08:52 PM
Would have preferred John Williams' wonderful score for Lincoln to win, but Life of Pi isn't a bad choice either.

And yay for Skyfall winning best original song!

Gotta say, I'm pretty happy with most of the winners thus far. Good night so far.
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 01-13-2013, 09:06 PM
Holy shit Will Ferrel and Kristen Wiig are the absolute highlight so far, I was cracking up haha Tommy Lee Jones looked pissed.

Love that Affleck gave a shout out to Paul Thomas Anderson!

Last edited by Hucksta G; 01-13-2013 at 10:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 01-13-2013, 10:20 PM
Just realized Lincoln is nominated in all the same categories as The King's Speech was nominated in.
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 01-13-2013, 10:23 PM
Loving the love for Girls!
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 01-13-2013, 10:27 PM
Fuck yes, Affleck getting a standing ovation. Clearly robbed of a Best Director nomination at the Oscars.
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 01-13-2013, 10:48 PM
Good God, Jackman winning Best Actor over Cooper. WTF!
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 01-13-2013, 10:51 PM
FUCK! I was hoping for Joaquin Phoenix.
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:06 PM
Nice batch of winners and an overall enjoyable, breezy ceremony this year (Fosters' acceptance speech was a midpoint highlight as well).

Two things:

1. I'm standing by my prediction of Argo winning BP this year at the Oscars. Affleck will get his due.

2. Supporting Actor is probably the wildcard category this year, it'll be anything-goes come Oscar night. Same with Best Actress (though it'll definitely be a Lawrence vs. Chastain race)
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:08 PM
I don't really have any opinions on the Golden Globe winners, but I just want to say that seeing Michael Haneke onstage with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone was probably one of the most surreal things I've ever seen.
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:11 PM
17/25 on my Globes picks and 11/14 in the film cats!

So happy for Affleck and Argo...oh how you fucked this up Academy!!!
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:17 PM
Favorite joke of the night still goes to Jennifer Lawrence for her thank you to Harvey Weinstein.
Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:17 PM
Wow. The Globes are back on the money again with their choices. Argo and Ben Affleck are going to be the fucking huge pink elephant in the room come Oscar time.
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hucksta G View Post
FUCK! I was hoping for Joaquin Phoenix.
Me too!

Didn't do so good with predictions but it was an awesome show. The Django love surprised me in a great way, I love that they spread the wealth with all the big movies, loved the surprises (Jackman and Les Miz were the only 'meh' points of the wins), can't be too pissed for Actor because DDL is the man, Argo winning Best Pic was wonderful to see and so deserving, and Fey and Poehler were great hosts (not as funny as Ricky but I figured that coming in) and the Wiig/Ferrell bit was the absolute funniest thing. They need to be co-hosts those two.
Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
the Wiig/Ferrell bit was the absolute funniest thing. They need to be co-hosts those two.
Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
2. Supporting Actor is probably the wildcard category this year, it'll be anything-goes come Oscar night. Same with Best Actress (though it'll definitely be a Lawrence vs. Chastain race)
Yes on Supporting Actor, but I have a feeling once Lawrence wins the SAG, everyone will start viewing her as the frontrunner, with Chastain still a threat but a little bit behind her. I say this assuming Lawrence actually wins the SAG. If Chastain wins, obviously the roles will be reversed, but I really believe Lawrence will win that. It may come down to whoever wins the BAFTA, since it's the last awards show before the Oscars. Watch them throw us a curve ball by giving it to Emmanuelle Riva. Then the Oscars will really be interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 01-13-2013, 11:55 PM
Affleck winning Best Director is the best thing to happen since Jim Carrey won for Man on the Moon back in 1999. And then for that to win Best Picture is absolutely fucking amazing! My choices were either that or Zero Dark Thirty, but Argo would be tops on my list there.

BUT When it comes to the OSCARS... i still fully expect Lincoln to win. That is the OSCAR movie, oscar bait like none other and the Academy's lack of recognition for Affleck as a Director means they dont have that same faith in him that the HFPA do.

Jodie Fosters speech was a bit weird, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were quite comical, nothing special, but funny, and thats all that is needed.

all in all a really good show with some good winners (Although Big bang Theory is the best comedy on TV right now.. I say that having never seen Girls though)
Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 01-14-2013, 12:14 AM
Is anyone starting to think that with both the snubbing of Affleck and all the Argo love that it may come out with BP, and then that there is enough anti-Spielberg sentiment that those guys, with no Affleck/Bigelow in the picture, might all wind up voting Haneke in for the surprise win? I mean, he seems to me the logical person the non-Spielberg voting block would want to go to at this stage. Am I crazy to think that an Argo/Haneke BP/BD is a decent albeit outside possibility?

Last edited by Gordon; 01-14-2013 at 12:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 01-14-2013, 12:14 AM
Some nice surprises (Waltz and Tarantino) and I'm happy for Affleck and Argo. I have a feeling that this will be the end of the road though, and it will be on to guild wins galore for Lincoln and then eventual Oscar wins.

The Bill Clinton thing was some straight up 90s Miramax vs. Dreamworks shit. Even though Lincoln had a quiet evening tonight, it's going to clean up come Oscar night.
Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 01-14-2013, 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Is anyone starting to think that with both the snubbing of Affleck and all the Argo love that it may come out with BP, and then that there is enough anti-Spielberg vote that those guys, with no Affleck/Bigelow in the picture, might coalesce around Haneke? Am I crazy to think that an Argo/Haneke BP/BD is entirely possible at this stage?
It has crossed my mind, but this reminds me of The King's Speech year where it was only winning Best Actor awards all season and then once the guilds hit, it just took over.
Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 01-14-2013, 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
Is anyone starting to think that with both the snubbing of Affleck and all the Argo love that it may come out with BP, and then that there is enough anti-Spielberg sentiment that those guys, with no Affleck/Bigelow in the picture, might all wind up voting Haneke in for the surprise win? I mean, he seems to me the logical person the non-Spielberg voting block would want to go to at this stage. Am I crazy to think that an Argo/Haneke BP/BD is a decent albeit outside possibility?
If anyone were to upset Spielberg, it would probably be Ang Lee or possibly David O. Russel (although the lack of a DGA nom for him makes this a long shot).

Don't read too much into the GGs love for Argo or Affleck. Recent history shows that the two rarely agree on these categories. In the past 5 years, only one GG director has taken the Oscar (Danny Boyle) and two GG best pictures have taken the Oscar best picture (Slumdog and The Artist).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump