Oscar nominations and space station links

[selenak]

The Oscar nominations. Immediate thoughts: Am glad Kate Winslet got one, since I thought she was snubbed at the Golden Globe. Several candidates to root for, which is good. If Jamie Foxx wins best supporting actor for Collataral, we'll know he won't win best leading man for Ray. Actually, the very fact he got the best supporting actor nomination for Collateral makes me suspect he'll win that one and not the leading one, because actually, his role in Collateral was the leading man. (More screen time than Cruise, and he was the central character.) I suspect the real leading man Oscar race will be between di Caprio and Don Cheadle.

Best picture: either Eastwood or Scorsese, and surely, given that Clint E. already scored for Unforgiven, they can't bypass Scorsese again? (Especially since The Aviator really rocks.)

Also: congratulations to Bernd Eichinger. I'm delighted Der Untergang (aka Downfall) got nominated for best foreign film. It's an excellent movie and I'll certainly cross my fingers.

***

deborah_judge wrote a fabulous DS9 ficlet about Winn, from Kai Opaka's pov. Read and admire. And in regards to my other favourite space station, andrastewhite has just completed the momentous task of compliling and uploading a complete Babylon 5 soundtrack. (Link in her lj.) londonkds, your suggestion of Stars for Bester in season 5 is in!

Back to work now...

Comments

[wychwood]

I just joined fst in an attempt to see andrastewhite's sound track, but I'm not seeing anything... can you give me directions?

[wychwood]

Scrap that, it just appeared mysteriously...

[cbrownjc]

in Collateral was the leading man. (More screen time than Cruise, and he was the central character.) I suspect the real leading man Oscar race will be between di Caprio and Don Cheadle.

However, Morgan Freeman (who's also nominated in Supporting Actor) is so freaking overdue for a win it's not even funny. So I think Freeman will get Supporting, and Jamie will still win lead.

Best picture: either Eastwood or Scorsese, and surely, given that Clint E. already scored for Unforgiven, they can't bypass Scorsese again? (Especially since The Aviator really rocks.)

We are talking about the Academy here however, so yeah, they could. Because I just have this weird feeling there are a lot of people who really want to make it up to Clint because he and his film lost Best Director and Best Picture to ROTK and Peter Jackson last year.

Screenwriter William Goldman (he wrote The Princess Bride) wrote an article in Variety last year, in which he argued for a Picutre/Director split - giving Clint and Mystic River Best Picture and Jackson Best Director. He wrote another article about a month ago, saying he was tired of the "feel guilty that Marty didn't win an Oscar for Raging Bull" campagin that was starting up again this year, and that Clint and Million Dollar Baby should win.

Plus - and this is just a fun fact - there's been a Best Picture/Best Director split every even year since 1998. It's an even year, so it's time for another split to happen again. :)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Okay, Morgan Freeman is overdue, true, and then Jamie Foxx has the better chances for the leading actor Oscar. Unless dark horse Don Cheadle...?

Haven't seen this year's Eastwood, since it hasn't started over here yet, so can't say how good it is, but don't you think the fact he did win the big one already will make a difference?

[cbrownjc]

Okay, Morgan Freeman is overdue, true, and then Jamie Foxx has the better chances for the leading actor Oscar. Unless dark horse Don Cheadle...?

I agree that Cheadle is a dark horse. However, what I think what would happen is he would "steal" Best Actor right out, and Jamie Foxx will end up like Julianne Moore - a double nomanee who goes home empty handed.

He wont win Supporting, because he really should be in Lead if they wanted to give him a nod for Collateral . . . there are some who see his nod there as catagory fraud. (Though it isn't his fault he's there . . . Dreamworks campaigned him there themselves.).

Haven't seen this year's Eastwood, since it hasn't started over here yet, so can't say how good it is, but don't you think the fact he did win the big one already will make a difference?

Yeah, but remember - Marty will still get an Oscar if The Aviator wins Best Picture (which it most likely will), as he's one of the Producers of the film. Also, it's been over 10 years since Clint last won.

And there are people like Goldman in the industry who are tired of the "you should feel guilty about not giving Marty a Best Director Oscar" thing, and refuse to just vote for him one now, to make up for it. (And also because they liked another picture more, which is what happened in 2002, when Gangs of New York lost.)

I just have this feeling that Eastwood and Scorsese will both leave the Kodak with statuetts this year. Eastwood with Director, and Scorsese with Best Picture.

I fully admit, however, that I might change my mind if Scorsese actually wins the Director's Guild Award this year. (Another award he's never won). :D

[selenak.livejournal.com]

He wont win Supporting, because he really should be in Lead if they wanted to give him a nod for Collateral . . .

I was really confused for a moment when I discovered him in the Supporting category, because he definitely was the lead in this film! (And then I figured it was the Academy's way to make sure he won't leave without an Oscar, not having thought of the Morgan Freeman factor.

Regarding Martin Scorsese's lack of a best director Oscar and the backlash against the backlash: you know, if he ends up without one for the rest of his life, he will, after all, be in the illustrious company of Orson Welles and Charles Chaplin.*g*

[buffyannotater.livejournal.com]

For the most part, I'm happy with the nominations. I'm a little disappointed Jim Carrey wasn't nominated and continue to be baffled at the tremendous accolades Sideways keeps getting. I honestly thought it was not just not great, but one of the worst movies I've seen this year. I can enjoy a film with unlikable characters (a rather condescending answer Ebert gave to a letter someone wrote him for his Answer Man column implied that the fact that the man didn't like the movie must have been because he didn't have a nuanced enough taste to enjoy a film with unlikable characters). There are some great films with unlikable characters. But how about characters that are not only unlikable, but more importantly, uninteresting? I didn't find one redeemable quality about one character in the film. And no, Ebert, redeemable as in the ability to justify him or herself as a character interesting enough to have a story built around him. But what do I know? ;-)

Oh, and re: Battlestar Galactica...

[buffyannotater.livejournal.com]

Best-laid plans and all that. Still haven't gotten a chance to watch. I don't have class tomorrow night, so I hope it works out then.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Not having seen Sideways, I couldn't say. Jim Carrey: you're right, that's a pity, because he was really fabulous in Eternal Sunshine. Perhaps a lingering prejudice against him as a comedian?

[buffyannotater.livejournal.com]

O/T, but I put Part 2 of my Revisiting Xena essay up at my LJ here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/buffyannotater/166071.html). There were so many posts on LJ today that I thought you might not have noticed. Don't worry, I'm not fishing for comments or anything. But since you were interested in the first part, I thought just in case you didn't notice it, you might be interested in the second also. :)