Predict the Oscars 2005

Scott Hardie | January 24, 2005
We'll be talking about the annual contest in two days anyway, so I thought I was safe to start a discussion for it now. I need to mention that the contest will begin sometime Tuesday evening, instead of the traditional Tuesday morning. I'll have it going as soon as possible.

It seems like "Million Dollar Baby," "Sideways," and "The Aviator" are sure bets for Best Picture noms. Anybody want to guess what the other two will be? It would be great to see a live-wire like "Passion of the Christ" or "Fahrenheit 9/11" jump into the competition, but it will probably be some stuffy, boring shit like "Being Julia." Personally I'd love to see the highly-regarded "Spider-Man 2" or "The Incredibles" slip into this category and stun everybody, but there's no use getting your hopes up for that to happen.

Erik Bates | January 24, 2005
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | January 24, 2005
Roger that, Erik -- I haven't seen two out of three (the first two), myself!

Scott Hardie | January 24, 2005
Well, to be fair, "Million Dollar Baby" isn't even out yet. It opens nationwide this Friday. It qualified for the Oscars by playing in Los Angeles in December. I hate how the Academy lets movies get away with that.

Scott Horowitz | January 24, 2005
Damn, this is the 1337'th thread, I wanted to start a "elite" thread.

Steve Dunn | January 24, 2005
I didn't think F 9/11 or The Passion were particularly good as movies. Both were successful, in my opinion, because they played off external political dynamics. Assuming the Oscars are supposed to be about good MOVIES, neither of those comes within sniffing distance of best picture. The Incredibles was waaaaay better than either one of them.

That said, I expect the academy to find some way to honor Michael Moore and snub Mel Gibson. F9/11 will probably win best documentary, which is a shame since it'll take the award away from Super Size Me, which was quite good and offers the advantage of being an actual documentary.

Erik Bates | January 24, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | January 24, 2005
Super Size Me should win for best documentary, in a good world. F 9/11 was good, but for sheer entertainment value, Morgan Spurlock wins fries down. =)

Scott Horowitz | January 24, 2005
Am I the only person that did not like F 9/11? I mean, a lot fo what was said was interesting, but I found the movie to drag on and boring. Passion will not be nominated nor will Gibson.

Scott Hardie | January 25, 2005
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is already disqualified for the Documentary Feature category because it aired on television; Moore knowingly took it out of the running. I don't believe that it or "Passion" will come anywhere near Best Picture noms (or any other noms, frankly), but I'd love to see the race get a little more spark than usual. :-)

Scott: I was less admiring of "Fahrenheit 9/11" the longer it went on. Moore came up with many great points but no single thesis around which to apply them. He may as well have called it "Bush: Bad Man."

Steve Dunn | January 25, 2005
I thought the first 20 minutes of F9/11 was funny and entertaining, though like all the rest of the film, it was very sloppy with the facts. The last 20 minutes was almost unbearable. Disjointed, self serving, and worst of all, booooring. It's a film I think a lot of people just decided to like because they wanted to like it.

Kinda like The Passion.

Mel Gibson's greatest achievement with The Passion was getting millions of evangelical Christians to buy into a uniquely Catholic interpretation of Biblical events.

Steve West | January 25, 2005
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Finding Neverland would be my guess for the two other Best Picture nominees but I would be pleased to see if it was Maria Full of Grace.

Scott Horowitz | January 25, 2005
The nominees have been announced.

(link)

Erik Bates | January 25, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | January 25, 2005
I read an article that when the best picture nominees are blockbusters the oscars draw more of a crowd than when they are for middle-of-the-road films. I don't think any of the picture noms netted more than $100 million.

Jackie Mason | January 25, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | January 25, 2005
Just a side note, 4/5 Best Actor Nominations are for real life protrayals. Do you think it is more talented of an actor to immitate a real life person or to create their own character?

Amy Austin | January 25, 2005
Personally, I think that portraying someone is much harder -- there is no license, really... you're either convincingly that person, or you're not.

Jackie Mason | January 25, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | January 25, 2005
Depends if the fictional character is well known though - then the same problems would apply, I think. Of course movies never follow books exactly, so maybe it doesn't matter...

Scott Hardie | January 26, 2005
As you probably already saw, the contest is up and running. (link)

I wrote it fairly quickly, so there's a chance of bugs still lurking in the system. Please let me know of any that y'all find. (There may be typos in the names of nominees, but that wouldn't affect your ability to play.)

Please note that this year's contest is open only to regular site users, entrants from previous years, and people who have my special permission (like friends of mine). There's no point in linking to this contest from elsewhere because no one who follows the link will be able to enter. Having all of those strangers kind of drained the fun out of it last year, so I am doing a trial run of the new regular-users-only rule. Tell me what you think.

With another rule change involving scoring, this is going to be an exciting contest. It's now more like a traditional game of chance, in that you get a greater reward for taking a greater risk. Good luck!

I'll comment on the actual nominations in a day or two, after I have caught up on my sleep. :-)

Erik Bates | January 26, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | January 26, 2005
As long as no one works for Price Waterhouse Cooper (I think they're the company that tallies the votes), they can play. :)

Jackie Mason | January 26, 2005
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | January 26, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | January 26, 2005
Erik,
And you blasted Scott for the snow joke......

Scott Hardie | January 27, 2005
Erik: I need to send him an email, but yes, he's invited back. People are eligible to enter the contest if they meet at least one of the following:
- guessed at least 10 goos correctly
- written at least 10 comments on ten different days
- been a FIN player (current or former)
- entered the Predict the Oscars contest in any previous year
- belong to my Saturday-evening RPG group (they use a hidden page on the site)
- have my special permission, like a friend or co-worker

After some consideration, I have decided to drop the dynamic point totals, and restore the old system of a fixed point value per category. Partly it's because I don't want crap like Best Animated Short Film to be on an equal footing with Best Picture and Best Director, but mainly it's because the point totals wouldn't be comparable to previous years, and I like comparing my score to how I did in the past. The goo game switched to a whole different scale when it went daily, and today's high scorer blows away yesterday's high scorer, but that was a worthy price to pay for making the game daily. The dynamic PTO scoring system has its advantages, but I just don't think it's worth the price.

Scott Horowitz | January 27, 2005
Seriously, not to offend anyone, but these people obsessed with the Passion of the Christ are dumb.
(link)

They are upset that it didn't get a Best Picture nod. Well, look at the reviews:

(link)


I know you liked it a lot, Scott, but from what I understand it was a very flawed movie.


Oh yeah, 1 other question: for best foreign language film and short films: do you guys do the same thing as me and pick the name you like the best?

Lori Lancaster | January 27, 2005
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | January 27, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | January 27, 2005
No, I don't hate it because it is about Jesus. Woah, there. I chose to not watch it because of the anti-semitic connotations that were drawn from the movie. The point that I was saying is that these people think it should be the greatest movie ever because of their beliefs, when in reality it received mediocre reviews at best.

Jackie Mason | January 27, 2005
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | January 27, 2005
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | January 27, 2005
Scott: Yes.

Jackie Mason | January 28, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | January 28, 2005
No problem, Jackie. ( I think you were talkign to me, if not, you have my permission to call me a dumbass). I know what you were trying to say, and defended myself properly, no hard feelings.

Erik Bates | January 28, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | January 28, 2005
Scott: In some ways it can be called flawed, but looking at it in terms of what Gibson intended to do with it, it was a big success. Anyway, I still maintain that it can be enjoyed by most people if they go in with an open mind (and, let's face it, some tolerance for violence). There are a number of movies on my list that I don't expect everyone to enjoy, like "The Bourne Supremacy" and "I Heart Huckabees," but I tried to say so in those cases. "Passion" wasn't one of them.

I will stop dwelling on old shit now. :-)

Kris Weberg | January 29, 2005
I just get a kick out of all the nonsense about how "brave" Gibson was to make a literalist Christian movie in a country where 70-80% of the people identify themselves as such and stick his quite profitable name on it, especially when you consider that pretty much every pious epic has attracted lasting attention, from The Ten Commandments to the Greatest Story Ever Told.

Indeed, filming it in Aramaic and Latin, albeit with subtitles, only enhanced the piety of the film for most of those who intended to see it for its religious conviction anyway. I knew from the start that it'd do major business; once it became "controversial," I knew it'd be a blockbuster hit. Rating or no, the same families that go only to G-rated Disney flicks -- plus those whop boycott Disney -- were headed for it. It was guaranteed major ticket revenue and DVD sales to churches and religious institutions (i.e., religious universities) as well.

If "Hollywood" is evil and pagan and/or atheist and won't make movies in the DeMille Bible-epic mode, then Hollywood seems to have ignored its own history of major profit with just such films.

Scott Hardie | January 30, 2005
Assuming that he could have gotten it distributed nationally as a major release with a high theater count, which wasn't a given with all the things the film had going against it, then you're right, it had a guaranteed profit center. But what Gibson risked wasn't so much losing money, it was losing clout in Hollywood, the same Hollywood that is evil and pagan/atheist and wants nothing to do with religious content, least of all Biblical. The film drew inevitable charges of anti-Semitism and Gibson didn't handle them well, or at least well enough for the industry. In the end, Gibson has wound up gaining a little bit more clout, because the business admires how he rolled the dice and won against the odds, but it's easy to imagine an alternate scenario in which producers were spooked by his outspoken religiousness and he had trouble finding parts in other people's movies for the remaining years of his career.

Anna Gregoline | January 30, 2005
But...Gibson has appeared nuts to be for years now, so I'm not sure he was concerned about his image at all.

Kris Weberg | January 30, 2005
Hollywood seems to have no real problem with Biblical content as far as I can tell, so long as it, like pretty much all other content, is essentially presented in as shallow, controversial, or crude a fashion possible. But interestingly, you could say that about nearly any kind of philosophical or spiritual content. It has a lot less to do with anti-Christian sentiment and a lot more to do with the idea of appealing to the broadest possible audience.

The Spider-Man movies have actually won praise from conservative Christian group Focus on the Family for including moments of religiosity, for example, and I can think of several movies of the past few years that were broadly about religion or had clearly religious overtones...one of them, M. Night Shyamalan's Signs, even starred Gibson. The difference with the Passion seems to be its deadly earnest, literalist means of dealing with religion, not its religiosity per se.

It also has to do with politics; many liberals in this country aren't hostile to Christianity itself, but to the way in which the label and trappings of Christianity have become synonymous with political conservatism. And yes, Hollywood, like the majority of creative fields -- I use "creative" broadly in the case of much of Hollywood's output, mind you -- is predominantly liberal, especially socially liberal. The arts have been socially liberal for at least a century, really.

But why is liberal or Leftist religiosity somehow less Christian than Gibson's more conservative faith? Is Martin Scorsese's the Last Temptation of Christ or Kevin Smith's Dogma really a less Christian movie, in the end, than the Passion? Both are swimming in references to Christian belief; both, however irreverently or controversially, seek to examine issues that confront Christians; and both, arguably, would be utterly irrelevant in a country without a majority Christian population.

It seems to me that Gibson's "crime" wasn't religiosity, but a particular kind of religiosity. That's still indicative of a deep-rooted and myopic bias in Hollywood, yes, but not necessarily atheism or anti-spiritual tendencies in
themselves.

Jackie Mason | February 13, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | February 14, 2005
Sunday February 27, two weeks from tonight.

Jackie Mason | February 14, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | February 27, 2005
The show starts in a few hours, and I'm as excited as I am every year.

My gut still says that "The Aviator" is going to win Best Picture because Hollywood almost always sides with the grand epic over the quiet drama when there's a grand epic in the contest. But I crunched the numbers and realized that my odds of coming out on top are greater if I predict "Million Dollar Baby" for Best Picture, so I changed to that title at the last minute. Similarly, in my heart I think Imelda Staunton has a real shot at winning Best Actress, but statistically I'd be a fool to predict her and risk letting everyone else pass me, so I picked Hilary Swank. (Besides, I had a similar feeling about Kathy Bates and Johnny Depp in two recent years, and they didn't pull off the split, so I'm probably wrong about Staunton anyway.)

What unofficial predictions would you like to make, or other comments in general?

I do plan to tabulate live during the show, but I won't be on any chat software this year, sorry.

Erik Bates | February 27, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | February 28, 2005
Wow, I'm getting pwn3d this year. doh

Amy Austin | February 28, 2005
Hmm... my only comfort is that you are sucking just a *tad* more than I, Scott! ;DDD

Scott Hardie | February 28, 2005
Man, I'm glad I trust numbers over hunches. That was a damn close one.

Scott Hardie | February 28, 2005
Comments on the show itself?

My thought: Please please please please *please* do away with the Best Original Song performances. The show already strains for any kind of momentum, and the musical numbers just plain kill that off completely. And scattering them throughout the show makes the pain last five times as long. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the Academy had less boring taste in songs ("Al Otro Lado Del Rio" was the only one this year with the slightest spark of life to it), or if the performances weren't so hammy and self-parodizing and transparently phony. I simply hate — hate, hate, hate! — that part of the Oscarcast.

Otherwise, great show.

Erik Bates | February 28, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | February 28, 2005
What everyone think of Chris Rock? Just curious. Wtf was up with Beyonce singing every fucking song? Her French accent sux.

Erik Bates | March 1, 2005
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | March 1, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 1, 2005
What kinds of things did Chris Rock say?

Scott Hardie | March 2, 2005
I'll write more soon, but right now I need to ask all players who entered the contest: Did you receive my email message a few hours after the telecast, announcing the winners? I have received no replies, from the four winners or otherwise, and I'm concerned that no one got the message. Thanks for letting me know.

Lori Lancaster | March 2, 2005
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | March 2, 2005
I did not get an email, I came here to see who won.

Amy Austin | March 2, 2005
I got one, but I had previously approved all your mail after the first time it went to my junk box, so if I hadn't, it would probably have gone there. Anyone who wants to get your messages should probably do the same.

Scott Horowitz | March 2, 2005
I got the email. Just bummed that I did so crappy. Last time I trust my instincts about movies I have never seen.

Amy Austin | March 2, 2005
Yeah, I'm with you, Scott... I guess it's a good thing that I'm good at the GOO, because I absolutely, positively, really *SUCKED* at PTO!!! ;DDDDD

Steve West | March 3, 2005
I got the e-mail. Replied this morning. Hope you got that.

Jackie Mason | March 3, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | March 4, 2005
Erik: Yo-Yo Ma was playing during the annual "In Memoriam" segment where the Academy remembers its members who died in the previous year. Gil Cates invented it years ago and it became quite popular and it's one reason he's still the producer today. I knew Brando was going to be the last person included, but I expected more applause for Reagan.

Scott: Rock was funny. Beyonce is a good singer, but I hate the song performances so much that they could put my absolute favorite musicians up there — hell, they could raise Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison from the dead to perform them — and I would still mute the damn things and count the seconds until they end.

Steve: Got your reply, yes. I've been kind of waiting for the other three winners to give me their prize choices before ordering any prizes (including GOO), but if they haven't by tomorrow morning then I'm going to stop waiting. Last year, Billy Marston became the first "Predict the Oscars" winner in history never to choose a prize, even after I asked him several times.

Anna Gregoline | March 4, 2005
I have to say, I'd like to see Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison play together.

Amy Austin | March 4, 2005
I've been kind of waiting for the other three winners to give me their prize choices before ordering any prizes (including GOO)...

I sent a reply to you that same day, Scott -- did you not receive it??? Let me know, and I will re-send! I'm really sorry that these comm problems seem to be leaving you in such a lurch... I, for one, would really like to claim *my* prize!!! ;DDDDD

Mike Eberhart | March 4, 2005
Same here Scott. Did you get my email?

Scott Hardie | March 4, 2005
Got 'em both, thanks. I'm just trying to do all of my prize-ordering at once so that I don't forget anything. But that's probably not going to happen anyway because three of the Oscar winners still haven't answered.

Amy Austin | December 7, 2005
New contender for My Favorite Movie... I Heart Huckabees -- without a doubt.

Scott Hardie | December 8, 2005
Really? Cool. It's a true love-it-or-hate-it movie, and you can't tell until you try it.

...Well, ok, I see Denise gave it 3 stars on Netflix, but for most people it's 1 or 5.

Amy Austin | December 9, 2005
Heheh... well, like you, Scott, I went into it not knowing a thing -- I hadn't even read your review until right after seeing it -- and I am so glad, because it really is the kind of movie that knowing nothing going into it serves well. (Remember, I shun all reviews as I'm able to -- still pretty pissed about stumbling into a Million Dollar Baby spoiler recently, but I guess that's what I get for always waiting too long for movies to show up on cable. But damn if I'm not going to get our money's worth for this 46" HDTV and pay channels!!! ;-D) Generally I don't even like to hear reactions until after seeing a movie for myself, and I was rather stunned to read (from your review... I *thought* I remembered you ranking it top of your 2004 list!) that it wasn't all that well received a film -- how sad. (Once again proving that I seem to be in the minority opinion on things more often than not.) But yeah, I love that kind of a movie -- serious and not at all serious at the same time -- I thought it was just great! (I even imagined some really cool ideas for something like a purse or tote to comemmorate the movie as I watched it... it's just too bad it wasn't more popular!) Ah, well... sometimes people are just sheep. (Note my paradox...) ;-)

Scott Hardie | December 20, 2005
I regularly resolve to stop reading reviews of major films, and for a while it works, but sooner or later I forget and give myself a huge spoiler. Thank you so much Roger Ebert for giving away the ending of "Brokeback Mountain." I would have liked to discover it for myself.

I like your way of describing it, Amy: "Serious and not." I struggled to find the way to describe the sense of humor and "straight-faced silliness" was the best I could find. It's that clash of tone between the most ludicrous statements said in the most serious manner that puts me in stitches.

Plus: "She said fuckabees!!"

Amy Austin | December 20, 2005
HAHA! Yeah, that line cracked me up, too...

Well -- without trying to go *too* far out on a limb here -- it's kind of like Matrix... in that there are actually some really cool (albeit basic/simplistic) philosophical concepts behind the entertainment. It's just that the former was *meant* to be taken subliminally and seriously -- in the form of an alternate reality scenario -- whereas Huckabee's was totally overt and meant to be funny -- in the context of our everyday reality and all the trials & tribulations that go with. Was this a Wes Anderson film? It had that feeling, but I confess that I do not know.

As for Brokeback Mountain... though I've not had any direct spoilage, I can certainly relate to your irritation on the matter. Not going to the theaters often (and watching very little commercial television) makes for not seeing a lot of trailers... and, as I discovered when seeing Ocean's Eleven in Singapore, I really LIKE going into a movie not having a clue where it's going! The first time I heard the title and/or saw the image from the movie poster, I didn't know anything more than that it appeared to be a Western-type movie and that it contained Jake Gyllenhal and Heath Ledger. But it seems that no amount of hiding will keep even the cave-dwelling recluse from knowing the basic story to this movie -- or, at least, that it's about... (gasp!) HOMOS!!! Geesh... you'd think that the novelty of gays in TV and the movies would have worn off by now.

Incidentally... even though I *had* seen trailers for Huckabee's and knew that I wanted to watch it, I was still thoroughly surprised by it -- why can't all movie promotion be that good??? There's nothing worse than a movie that leaves you feeling like you already saw the condensed version in the trailers... and there was really nothing more to offer.

Scott Hardie | December 23, 2005
Already I'm hearing buzz about a so-called "gay Oscars" this season if "Brokeback Mountain" wins picture and director, "Capote" wins actor, and "Transamerica" wins actress. Personally I doubt any of the four of them will win, but it's still very early in the season. If Brokeback becomes a real contender for Best Picture, it's going to face a severe red-state backlash. (Prediction: At least one blogger will dub it the "Brokebacklash.")

Anderson didn't direct Huckabees, but I see the similarity in style. There are some differences between him and Huckabees director David O. Russell, primarily (imo) that Russell engages the mind and Anderson engages the heart.

Best trailer I've seen all year: (link) The movie's just as good as it looks.

Amy Austin | December 23, 2005
Well, Scott -- it's not much of a "prediction" if you post it online, is it??? ;-) Seems more like a "gimme" to me... (I don't know... what do I know.)

Yeah, I looked it up after I posted that, and I've never heard of Russell. That's not to say that I haven't maybe seen anything by him, but I've never been very director-focused where it isn't hyped in the previews (e.g., Spielberg, Scorcese, Cameron, Bruckheimer...) -- but yeah, I do think there's some similarity... so much so that I can even imagine Luke Wilson in that lead role. I don't know enough to compare them empirically, but I was just a tad disappointed by Zissou and the Life Aquatic.

edit: Just looked, and I *haven't* seen anything else by him. :-|

And I like that your trailer tells me what the film is "not", rather than what it is... heheheh!

Jackie Mason | December 23, 2005
[hidden by request]

Michael Paul Cote | December 23, 2005
What, you didn't see Nathan Lane's musical segment recently on Letterman?

Amy Austin | December 23, 2005
OMG... Jackie, are you suffering from underexposure?!?!? Have you been trapped under a rock lately? (I'm just sorry to be the first to tell you!!!)

Lori Lancaster | December 23, 2005
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | December 23, 2005
Hahahahaha... damn it, Lori!
It's about a couple of gay cowboys (Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhal) and their difficulties as such -- that's all I know, and that's all (more than, actually) I wanna' know until I see it!!! So if anyone knows anything more than this, please don't say so without first offering warning -- thanks! ;-D

Erik Bates | December 25, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | December 30, 2005
Yes, "Munich" is eligible. It has to play in one theater in LA for one week before midnight December 31 to qualify for the Oscars, which it has already done in limited release. It's even playing here in Sarasota. But its actual date of wide national release is January 6, which is why it will someday wind up on my Best Films of 2006 feature if it winds up there at all. Punk-ass Hollywood distribution system.