Jump to content

Cashless Society

Members
  • Posts

    805
  • Joined

Posts posted by Cashless Society

  1. 21 hours ago, Mladen said:

    Actually no, That title still goes to Venice. 

    • 2023 - Poor Things, Maestro, El Conde, Io Capitano, Society of the Snow
    • 2022 - The Banshees of Inisherin, TAR, All the Beauty and the Bloodshed, Blonde, The Whale, Living
    • 2021 - Power of the Dog, Spencer, Parallel Mothers, Dune
    • 2020 - Nomadland, Pieces of a Woman

    Nomadland and Poor Things won Golden Lions in their respective years. Nomadland won Best Picture, PT got 11 nominations

    Vanessa Kirby, Penelope Cruz and Cate Blanchett all won Volpi Cup - all nominated for Oscar

    All the Beauty and the Bloodshed - also won Golden Lion, nominated for Best Documentary

    Venice is far more appealing to English-speaking producers who intend to engage in Oscar race, simply because of the calendar. It is the perfect place to kickstart the Oscar campaign. And the list of winners is usually nominated and even win Oscar in respected categories.

    Cannes is more internationally oriented (not that Venice isn't). Plus it is in May, so it is very hard to keep the momentum. Not that it doesn't happen, it is still one of the biggest, if not the biggest festival in the world. 

     

    Ah, I was looking at it frome a much narrower perspective (Picture  + Director nomination, produced outside of US/UK)

  2. 8 hours ago, Ran said:

    Really pleased for Stone, and looking at clips she seemed quite shocked. But this (and the Boy and the Heron win, plus Poor Things in Makeup) tells me that people need to bump up the weight of the international section of the Academy when prognosticating.

    I'm surprised at how many people don't take the voting power of the new members into consideration of their predictions. Poor Things would have never received a nomination just a decade ago. The international section really loves Lanthimos.

    6 hours ago, Veltigar said:

    I'd given Best Picture, Best Director and Best cinematography to Poor Things (in that order of preference) over Oppenheimer. Heck, Glazer for Best Director would also have been better come to think of it.

     

    Can't wait for the 20-year retrospective on this, when people start asking what the Academy was thinking giving Oppenheimer all these awards when better films existed alongside it.

    6 hours ago, Mladen said:

    Infused myself with some coffee and now I have a break... Time to recapitulate

    So, 17/23. Not great, not terrible. Allowed myself into thinking too much about Academy and how they vote and opted for Spiderverse instead of "The Boy and the Heron". Expected to see some spreading the wealth in Costume, Production and MakeUp and POOR THINGS just swept like they did in BAFTA.

    It really seems that Academy spread the wealth rater nicely this year, unlike the last year. Eight out of ten nominated movies went with at least one award, with PAST LIVES and MAESTRO going home empty-handed. Huge departure from last year when EEAAO went 6/8 above-the-line and Women Talking winning Adaoted Screenplay. This year, we had 5 movies winning in eight above-the-line categories. Honestly, this year's set of winners - far superior than last year's. 

     

    And forgot... In terms of relevance for Oscar predicting, BAFTA returned with a vengeance. After going 0 out of 8 in above-the-line categories, this year the overlap between BAFTA and Oscars is almost 100%. I think they only differ in Visual Effects - BAFTA giving it to POOR THINGS, Oscars to GODZILLA MINUS ONE. BAFTA matters people. Never doubt the Brits. 

    I get the feeling that the new batch of members aren't at all concerned with the whole spread the wealth outlook. Also, where any of this year's nominees as hyped as EEAAO? Because hype can get you additional awards, deserved or otherwise. 

    I've been waiting to write of the BAFTAs as a precursor ever since they announced that the winners are determined by a small select jury. Last year seemed like the start of it and yet somehow they bounced back.

  3. On 2/27/2024 at 8:04 PM, Mladen said:

    Yes, but all of those three, in the past 10 years, only Venice proved to be impactful in terms of setting momentum for award season that culminates with Oscars. There's a reason why I didn't post Berlinare winners, because they will be of importance next season (2024/2025), not this one. That's why I said I should open next year with all festival winners.
     

    But Cannes has proven to be the most significant this decade (Parasite, Drive My Car, Triangle of Sadness and now Anatomy of a Fall).

  4. Now that I've watched most of the nominees, here's my ballot if I was a member of the Academy:

    Best Picture
    1. Anatomy of a Fall
    2. Killers of the Flower Moon
    3. The Zone of Interest
    4. Barbie
    5. Past Lives
    6. American Fiction
    7. Poor Things
    8. The Holdovers
    9. Oppenheimer
    10. Abstain

    Best Director:
    Winner: Justine Triet - Anatomy of a Fall
    Runner-up: Martin Scorsese: Killers of the Flower Moon

    Best Actor:
    Winner: Cillian Murphy - Oppenheimer
    Runner-Up: Paul Giamatti - The Holdovers

    Best Actress:
    Winner: Lily Gladstone - Killers of the Flower Moon
    Runner-Up: Sandra Hüller - Anatomy of a Fall

    Best Supporting Actor:
    Winner: Ryan Gosling: Barbie
    Runner-up: Robert De Niro - Killers of the Flower Moon

    Best Supporting Actress:
    Winner: Danielle Brooks - The Color Purple
    Runner-up: Da'Vine Joy Randolph - The Holdovers

    Best Original Screenplay:
    Winner: Justine Triet - Anatomy of a Fall
    Runner-up: Celine Song: Past Lives

    Best Adapted Screenplay:
    Winner: Jonathan Glazer: The Zone of Interest
    Runner-up: Greta Gerwig & Noah Baumbach- Barbie

    Best Animated Feature:
    Winner: The Boy and the Heron
    Runner-up: Spiderman: Across the Spiderverse

    Best International Feature:
    Winner: Society of the Snow
    Runner-up: The Zone of Interest

    Best Original Score:
    Winner: Ludwig Göransson - Oppenheimer
    Runner-up: Robbie Robertson - Killers of the Flower Moon

    Best Original Song:
    Winner: Wahzhazhe - Killers of the Flower Moon
    Runner-up: I'm Just Ken - Barbie

    Best Sound:
    Winner: Willie Burton, Richard King, Gary Rizzo & Kevin O'Connell - Oppenheimer
    Runner-up: Abstain

    Best Production Design:
    Winner: Jack Fist & Adam Willis - Killers of the Flower Moon
    Runner-up: Sean Price, Shona Heath & Zsuzsa Mihalek - Poor Things

    Best Cinematography:
    Winner: Rodrigo Prieto - Killers of the Flower Moon
    Runner-up: Edward Lachman - El Conde

    Best Makeup & Hairstyling:
    Winner: Ana López-Puigcerver, David Martí & Montse Ribé - Society of the Snow
    Runner-up: Nadia Stacy, Mark Coulier & Josh Weston - Poor Things

    Best Costume Design:
    Winner: Jacqueline Durran: Barbie
    Runner-up: Jacqueline West: Killers of the Flower Moon

    Best Film Editing:
    Winner: Laurent Sénéchal - Anatomy of a Fall
    Runner-up: Thelma Schoonmaker - Killers of the Flower Moon

    Best Visual Effects:
    Winner:  Takashai Yamazaki, Kiyoko Shibuya, Masaki Takahashi & Tatsuji Nojima - Godzilla Minus One
    Runner-up: Abstain (I haven't seen the other nominees)

  5. 2 hours ago, Mladen said:

     When it comes to actress, I am sad Greta Lee missed. But count on actors to pick biopic roles and push out original ones. Can't say I am bothered by Mulligan, but Bening... That was just one boring, uninspiring choice. As for winning, Lily is in danger, because KOTF showed serious weaknesses missing Screenplay and Lead Actor. That said, Huller may be on the rise and if she wins BAFTA, given 5 nominations for ANATOMY OF A FALL, this could be three-women-race. 

    Does that really matter? KotFM loosing out in a competitive field shouldn't have that much of an effect on her chances. And apparently Leo has been doing more campaigning for Gladstone than for himself, so that probably a benefit for her.

  6. 3 hours ago, Mladen said:

    The 2024 Academy Awards (AMPAS) Nominations

    The Oscar nomination count:

    • Oppenheimer: 13
    • Poor Things: 11
    • Killers of the Flower Moon: 10
    • Barbie: 8
    • Maestro: 7
    • The Holdovers: 5
    • American Fiction: 5
    • The Zone of Interest: 5
    • Anatomy of a Fall: 5
    • Napoleon: 3
    • Nyad: 2
    • Past Lives: 2

    There's a chance Marty could go 0-10 on back-to-back films at the Oscars?

    2 hours ago, Mladen said:

    Some thoughts:

    OPPENHEIMER had a great day. It is becoming undeniable as it is the only movie/director/screenplay not missing anywhere. BARBIE missed the director and actress, THE HOLDOVERS director, so I have a hard time seeing anything else winning Best Picture. Same for Nolan.

    When it comes to actress, I am sad Greta Lee missed. But count on actors to pick biopic roles and push out original ones. Can't say I am bothered by Mulligan, but Bening... That was just one boring, uninspiring choice. As for winning, Lily is in danger, because KOTF showed serious weaknesses missing Screenplay and Lead Actor. That said, Huller may be on the rise and if she wins BAFTA, given 5 nominations for ANATOMY OF A FALL, this could be three-women-race. 

    For me, it's been undeniable since the start of the awards season. Oppenheimer is well liked with no clear challenger and it doesn't seem to be polarising Academy members, so a CODA/Power of the Dog scenario is unlikely to happen here.

    2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

    The power of John Williams got Indiana Jones a nod for original score. Who knew mostly rehashed soundtracks get to be nominated.

    Hasn't he been getting away with this since the Star Wars sequels?

  7. 17 hours ago, Annara Snow said:

    Creative Arts Emmys Awards: https://www.indiewire.com/awards/results/2023-creative-arts-emmy-award-winners-full-list-1234939915/

    (One of the dumbest expressions BTW. I've been wondering for years why they call it like that. Are writing, directing and acting in regular roles not creative arts?!)

    Anyway, to paraphrase that Twititer meme, Nicholas Britell's score for the final season of Succession vs the score for The White Lotus season 2? Really 'hydrogen bomb vs coughing baby' but the coughing baby won because Emmys can often be like that.

    Perhaps it's just a less offensive way saying Technical Craft?

    I can kind of see voters getting bored listening to variations of a score (even though it's good) compared to something different :dunno:

  8. 5 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

    “GOLDEN GLOBE FOR CINEMATIC & BOX OFFICE ACHIEVEMENT”

    So, we’re just giving out an award for making the most money last year? Isn’t “making the most money last year” award enough? Why are there multiple nominees?

    Looking at the nominees, the key word here appears to be Cinematic. If it really was about box office, then Fast X, The Little Mermaid and Quantumania would also be nominated. 

    I think this award is meant to tell studio big wigs that films don't necessarily have to be assembly line productions to be financially successful, giving filmmakers artistic freedom can also do that.

  9. In which Nolan hijacks The Facebook Movie, while incorporating some Malick elements here and there.

    If you're fan of Nolan's filmography, you'll have a blast seeing Oppenheimer. (I saw this in digital imax, where there were no sound issues).

    The issues I had where the same issues I've had with his previous films: Noaln still tries to be as literal as possible, delivering the message with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Perfunctory editing, jumping from one scene to the next to get to the story moving quickly, while not giving the scene time to breathe and for the audience to digest. Nolan still doesn't know how to write and properly film intimate relationships. 

    On the positive side, the performances were top notch, they should really make an Oscar category for best ensemble or best casting. And Göransson's score was exceptional, exceeding beyond the many technical components of the film (except maybe the acting) without completely drowning everything out. I'd be surprised if Göransson doesn't win all the awards for his score.

  10. 11 minutes ago, Ran said:

    What was the theory?

    The way I reason it is that there was nothing that happened in the last 18 months that would make him decide that Kendall could ever run the empire. Just think about all the nuts stuff Kendall has been through in that time. On top of that, if he meant to underline it, he would have gone, "Shit, it looks like I crossed it out, lets underline a few more times for emphasis, or break out the eraser:" Whereas if it was a sloppy attempt at crossing out, he'd shrug and say, "That's enough, they know I fucking don't trust the boy to run anything."

    That Greg would end up taking over Waystar Royco.

    The timeline of the show is really wonky, but 18 months would be sometime in season 2. At that point Roman and Kendall were vying it out to see who would be Logan's number 2 in the proxy war, and Shiv rejoined the company. I could definitely see the underlining as Logan putting in a note to revisit whether Kendall should still be running the company. Given everything that went down during season 3, the document may have slipped his mind. 

  11. On 4/13/2023 at 10:30 PM, Winterfell is Burning said:

    Key difference is that Logan seems much more rational than Murdoch. Can't see him genuinely believing all the non-sense Murdoch does. 

    I was listening to this one podcast which says that Logan, in terms of character, resembles Redstone more than Murdoch.

    4 hours ago, Ran said:

    Yeah, 

      Hide contents

    LOLed with his chancing "Greg with a question mark" next to it meant he was going to be Kendall's #2.

    It's also painfully obvious that Logan scratched out Kendall's name.

    Really good episode. Anyone feel Hugo's situation is going to cause a problem down the line for Kendall? He turns to him to do dirty work to blacken his father's name and put forward that they were puppet masters, but he knows Hugo is going to be fucked with the SEC once they notice what his daughter did.

     

    I'm pretty sure that was a wink to the fan theory that was popular during the early seasons.

    Spoiler

    I still believe. 

    Really? To me it looks like he clearly intended to underline it but his poor health makes it look like he's scratching it out halfway. It's also hilarious that Kendall is intact, but Logan Roy is scratched out.

    Yep, I wonder who he'll turn to once Hugo is gone.

    2 hours ago, Relic said:

    Greg - no idea. But everyone hates Greg, and he's been pretty horrible. Back to the parks throwing up out of Goofy's eyeholes?

    Nah, Greg always improves his station with every passing season, he's the Bronn of this show.

  12. On 3/13/2023 at 5:30 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

    Given there have traditionally been 4 nominations, and in more recent years 10, a 50% connection between best director and best picture is a trend. I imagine the only comparable predictor would be screenplay, but since there are two of those awards it's a bit trickier to make the link.

    Never mind, I'm stupid. There's actually a 70% correlation between Picture and Director. 

    On 3/13/2023 at 7:03 PM, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

    The utter lack of nominations for The Shining

    Th Oscars capture a mood and a moment (most of the time), but are very hit-and-miss when it comes to films that really endure. 

    To be fair, outside of a niche group of film lovers, most people thought this was a bad movie upon release. 

    On 3/13/2023 at 7:27 PM, Ran said:

    But I do think there's something about the film that does trigger people, and it's the fact that it's basically an indie superhero film that's just another example of the Marvelization of Hollywood. You've got people decrying superhero films as an example of the infantilization of the art, and here people plunge head over heels into a love affair with this superhero film. It even has a supervillain in Jobu Tupaki.

    I'm rewatching it now and had to pause a little under half way in because it's just a bit exhausting. There's some things I really like about it up to this point (Quan, Yeoh, the thematic heart of it), but the frantic tossing out of "quirky" nonsense like the Everything Bagel Blackhole and the world of cheese-filled sausage fingers is jut tiresome. I still think the film is too long and too undisciplined.

    But the argument against Marvel isn't that it's about superheroes, but rather that instead of being an artistic expression, it's an assembly line product. That's the difference between them. People still go crazy over The Dark Knight right?

    I think the exhaustion is part of the reason it resonated so much with certain audiences, particularly with Gen-Z.

    23 hours ago, Mladen said:

    EEAAO is certainly an original movie, but I think some people may be exaggerating this. You have Guillermo del Toro's "The Shape of Water" introducing quirky fantasy to Academy members, you have "Parasite" starting what seems to be an Asian wave of influence (just to be clear, nothing bad with that, Asian cinema is glorious and original and we need more of it) plus multiverse is sort of MCU thing these days. 

    Will EEAAO stand the test of time? IDK... People try to convince me that it is the best thing since sliced bread. On the other hand I know the memory of modern consumer and I have seen these obsessions going as fast as they were created. We'll see in a year or two. And we'll also see whether this will bring any change to Hollywood or are we destined for another 2015. in 2024? 

    Depends on how one defines "Original". Throughout the previous year, a lot of people where talking about Top Gun: Maverick as if it was somehow an "original" movie.

    I'm pretty sure it will. Any movie that comes out early in the year, gets constantly talked about throughout the year and receives a best picture nomination pretty much stands the test of time. Taxi Driver, Get Out, Silence of the Lambs.

    16 hours ago, Mladen said:

    I never said EEAAO is fading. I have my doubts, but I think that the effect it will have on industry is significant. When a movie like this wins 7 Oscars, people start thinking outside the box what they consider is "Oscar-winning movie". I was talking particularly about this win, but EEAAO as a whole does have a potential to change what is being awarded at the Oscar. We have two "by the book" movies - The Fabelmans and Elvis going empty-handed, so I think that is also telling.

    I'm not sure it will change what gets awards anytime soon. Look at the other big win of the night, a movie that fits many characteristics of Oscar Bait. There's a high probability that it could have won more awards if Netflix had been campaigning for it from the beginning. 

  13. 35 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

    Given there have traditionally been 4 nominations, and in more recent years 10, a 50% connection between best director and best picture is a trend. I imagine the only comparable predictor would be screenplay, but since there are two of those awards it's a bit trickier to make the link.

    Apparently, editing used to be the best predictor until round about the new millennium. 

  14. My personal picks if I was a member of AMPAS:

    Picture:

    EEAAO, Tar, Elvis, Women Talking, Avatar: The Way of Water, The Banshees of Inisherin, The Fabelmans, Top Gun: Maverick, Triangle of Sadness, All Quiet on the Western Front

    Director: Daniels (Runner-up: Todd Field)

    Actress: Cate Blanchett (Runner-up: Michelle Yeoh)

    Actor: Colin Farrell (Runner-up: Paul Mescal)

    Supporting Actress: Kerry Condon (Runner-up: Hong Chau)

    Supporting Actor: Ke Huy Quan (Runner-up: Brendan Gleeson)

    Adapted Screenplay: Abstain, none of these nominees are worthy.

    Original Screenplay: EEAAO (Runner-up: Tar)

    International Feature: Argentina, 1985

    Song: Lift Me Up (Runner-up: This is a Life)

    Animated Feature: Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio (Runner-up: Marcel the Shell with Shoes On)

    Editing: Elvis (Runner-up: Tar)

    Cinematography: Abstain, none of these nominees are worthy.

    Visual Effects: Avatar: The Way of Water 

    Production Design: Elvis (Runner-up: Avatar: The Way of Water)

    Costume Design: EEAAO (Runner-up: Black Panther: Wakanda Forever)

    Makeup & Hairstyling: The Batman (Runner-up: Black Panther: Wakanda Forever)

    Sound: The Batman (Avatar: The Way of Water)

    Original Score: The Fabelmans (Runner-up: The Banshees of Inisherin)

     

  15. 6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

    There was a point in time where I considered Aronofsky to be the most exciting and interesting director out there. I still love The Fountain as I think it sort of justifies its pretentious style with Jackmans amazing performance. But it’s been so long since I’ve been anything other than underwhelmed by his movies that I’m starting to think he’s someone more in the ‘pretentious hack’ category with M Night. Not that bad yet but it would be easy to re-examine his work and think he’s not actually very good. 

    I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't say it's "pretentious hack" category. Rather that, similar to M. Night, having too much success early in his career has now left him in a state of "can I still live up to this reputation?" phase. Where now he’s overdoing it. M. Night got over this hurdle after the Will and Jaden vehicle that crashed and burned and no one in Hollywood was willing to finance his films any longer. I wonder what it would take for Aronofsky to get over his hurdle.

  16. Finally got around to watching Drunken Angel, the first collaboration between Kurosawa and Mifune. Exciting to see Kurosawa still working out some his visual style and also venting out some of his frustration during the occupation period. Mifune's performance was great, and I would have loved to see him in a suave James Bond type role.

    All Quiet on the Western Front, and I was rather disappointed in the film. A lot of the scenes were very perfunctory and had almost no emotional impact on me, so when key moments occurred, it felt meaningless and somewhat manipulative. It also felt as if the film was manufactured to win awards by utilising Hollywood style filmmaking in what is supposed to be an antiwar film and was only helped by the story not providing an opportunity for elaborate grandiose scenes. I would recommend giving Come and See a watch for those who haven't seen it, as it actually succeeds where this fails.

    Living was a good watch, although completely unnecessary if you've already seen the original masterpiece. 

    The Whale was pretty much the most try-hard movie of the awards season, which I suspect is why it got such a limited number of nominations. Fraser and Hong Chau deliver performances that rise way above the lacklustre material they were given to work with. Sadie Sink on the other, lacks the experience of the former two and looked really terrible, it's one of those characters where defenders will claim "she's a teenager, that's how they behave" as a way to excuse such terrible writing. And the final scene was one of the most comical things I've seen in a while. I almost fell off the couch at how pompous the whole thing played out. I wonder if the editor turned to look at Aronofsky and dared to ask him, "are there really no better takes of this scene?"


    Aftersun was the best of the bunch I saw. It's like the type of movie Sofia Coppola tried to make with Somewhere, but it actually succeeds. I loved that there was no need for the dad to do a monologue about depression and dissatisfaction with life, instead it's all just shown visually and with Paul Mescal's subdued yet brilliant performance. Oddly enough, some of the visual style reminded me a lot of Spring Breakers.

  17. 22 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

    In retrospect, I would have preferred that Aegon was more of a lovable loser than an alcoholic degenerate. The actor showed enough brief glimpses of this that I definitely think he could have pulled it off. By making Aegon so despicable, and by not playing up how Daemon would definitely have had his nephews put to the sword, the show failed to make this conflict more morally ambiguous, despite clearly intending to.

    But would that make the conflict morally ambiguous or would it make turn the audience against Daemon instead?

  18. 4 hours ago, TormundsWoman said:

    What is sad is that Aemond seemed to not control his own dragon. And quite frankly his “not intending” to kill Luke when he has the largest, grumpiest and meanest beast in the skies but chasing him like he means it, makes the character look a bit stupid.

    What's wrong with characters acting stupid?

  19. 24 minutes ago, GeorgeIAF said:

    Probably Aemond will be called kinslayer in Season 2. Aegon will have a party for him when he returns.

    I can definitely see Aegon throwing his brother a huge party, calling him a badass etc. I'd be interested to see if this provides a genuine bonding moment between the two before the events at Rook's Rest make Aemond revert back to wanting to be king.

    15 minutes ago, Raksha 2014 said:

    I actually thought that Lucerys acted like more than "a little boy" when he went out on the mission that would claim his life:  despite his lack of self-confidence in his destiny as the future Lord of the Tides or his own fighting skills, Lucerys conducted himself with considerable dignity and confidence as a queen's envoy to Lord Borros (a hostile host) under the smirking eye of Aemond.  Lucerys did not panic when Aemond tried to coerce him to cut out his own eye; but reiterated his own status as an envoy rather than a warrior; though he drew his sword in answer to Aemond's threat, not in panic but in answer, despite Aemond's greater age and height.  When Lucerys reached his dragon, he did his best to calm Arrax, despite their having to leave suddenly in the terrible weather.  Not every 14-year-old boy would behave so well.  And even when Aemond, on Vhagar, set upon Lucerys, attacking and harassing him and shouting threats, Lucerys did not panic; he tried to hide in crevasses (a fairly successful strategy). 

    Lucerys didn't act like a little boy; he acted like the brave and resilient prince he was growing up to be.  What he didn't act like was Superman; since he didn't have any special advantage; like the largest dragon in Westeros or a fantastic talent for fighting.

    Not that I disagree with you, but I was under the impression that @Rockroi was referring to his lack of confidence due to his inexperience in dealing with such matters which is in turn due to his age. The actor's performance gave off the feeling that, internally, the Luke had to keep reminding himself of what he should do/say and keep the promise made to his mother as, again, he's not a natural at this. This portrayal is very consistent with how "a little kid" who is really trying would approach the situation. 

×
×
  • Create New...