Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

The [unwritten] Oscar Rules


Recommended Posts

Voice work-only actors (animation voices) CAN'T receive acting nominations.

 

Foreign language movies are NOT eligible for Best Picture....only Best Foreign Film.

 

Animated movies are NOT eligible for Best Picture....only Best Animated Feature.

 

(Most of the time) Sci-fi, fantasy, and horror movies are NEVER to be considered for Best Picture....only technical categories.

 

Certain technical categories like Visual Effects and Makeup can ONLY have no more than 3 nominees in such categories (This is one which really burns my beans every year).

 

Best Sound and Best Sound Effects EDITING have to be separate categories (Okay, this is just a personal gripe....there should be only ONE category for Sound....Period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}

> ...Best Sound and Best Sound Effects EDITING have to be separate categories (Okay, this is just a personal gripe....there should be only ONE category for Sound....Period.

Knowing someone who works in sound mixing and sound EDITING, there is a distinction. I am not sure if I can explain it. The closest to me would be the difference between the Director and the Cinematography. But I am a layperson; take it with a grain of salt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=redriver wrote:}{quote}

> Always nominate a comedian in a dramatic role.

 

But, no matter how good a comedy is, it can't win best picture, or heck, even get nominated.

Drama> Comedy... in hollywood's eyes...at least come Oscar time.

 

The more boring the epic is, the better the shot it wins best picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Capuchin wrote:}{quote}

> You give it for an actor's mediocre performance after snubbing their great work a couple of years before.

 

You have mentioned what I think is the #1 voting rule! Thanks Capuchin! It's like the Academy votes for the one with the most buzz at voting time (not always the best) then have a case of remorse which they try to correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonny Geetar treads very lightly into the room...

 

Psssst!,

 

Guys: a little word of warning, people get really sensitive when you start listing specific Oscar beefs and griefs. Apparently there are a lot of hardcore Shirley Booth/L-U-I-S-E Rainer fans out there. Just be wary is all I'm saying

 

THE OSCARS ARE HOLY AND BLAMELESS, THEY HAVE NEVER MADE A MISTAKE OR A BAD CHOICE. THEY ARE ALL-SEEING AND WISE. HEATH LEDGER IN PARTICULAR WAS BRILLIANT AND THAT WAS A TOTALLY CORRECT DECISION FOR HIM TO WIN.

 

Ps- totally agree with _everything_ everyone here has said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In her book Flesh and Fantasy, Penny Stallings has a short section taking a

playful approach to this topic: Wear a Funny Nose: Lee Marvin, Cat Ballou

and Jose Ferrer, Cyrano de Bergerac. If You're a Good Girl, Play a Bad Girl:

Donna Reed, From Her to Eternity and Shirley Jones, Elmer Gantry. If

You're a Bon Vivant: Play a Lush Ray Milland, The Lost Weekend ...or a

Nerd, David Niven, Separate Tables.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the best, best, best Oscar book ever (outside of Inside Oscar by Mason Wyley and Damien Bona) is Alternate Oscars by a guy named Danny Peary. He gives his own picks for picture, actor and actress from 1927 to Silence of the Lambs

 

and he is totally right every time.

 

psst! look: i'm serious soon people will start posting things like you must hate all movies or you live under a bridge. my favorite was: "so what, they should go back and take the Oscar away from someone just because YOU don't like their performance?" i'm serious: watch out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slumdog Millionaire did not deserve the attention it received, I was watching it the other day and switched off when I was twenty minutes into the film, it just doesn't hold up. I watched The Hunchback Of Notre Dame with Charles Laughton instead and everything about that film was 10x better than Slumdog Millionaire. I just thought to myself after how Hollywood is now hopeless. All they do are these character pieces about poor people in kitchen-sink drama situations and then having to make some kind of decision in the end like: Crazy Heart, The Wrestler. They don't tell stories of epic scope and great acting like Gone With The Wind or Citizen Kane. Look at this year with: Precious, Crazy Heart - these are kitchen-sink dramas! It's like we're in Europe!

 

I've lost some respect for the Academy Awards in these past years. The films are good but not great or even future classics.

 

Edited by: PTAndersonFan on Dec 21, 2009 3:15 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more boring the epic is, the better the shot it wins best picture.

 

GANDHI, CHARIOTS OF FIRE, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, A PASSAGE TO INDIA. These were not all winners, but they were nominated. And, well, let's just say they're not edge-of-the-seat excitement!

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=PTAndersonFan wrote:}{quote}

> Slumdog Millionaire did not deserve the attention it received, I was watching it the other day and switched off when I was twenty minutes into the film, it just doesn't hold up. I watched The Hunchback Of Notre Dame with Charles Laughton instead and everything about that film was 10x better than Slumdog Millionaire. I just thought to myself after how Hollywood is now hopeless. All they do are these character pieces about poor people in kitchen-sink drama situations and then having to make some kind of decision in the end like: Crazy Heart, The Wrestler. They don't tell stories of epic scope and great acting like Gone With The Wind or Citizen Kane. Look at this year with: Precious, Crazy Heart - these are kitchen-sink dramas! It's like we're in Europe!

 

I agree.

 

I think maybe movies today are made for kids and teenagers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For many years, the Best Supporting Actor award always went to an older actor who'd never won an Oscar: Jack Albertson, Don Ameche, George Burns, etc. Kevin Kline's win for A Fish Called Wanda broke the spell. This still happens occasionally, as with Morgan Freeman.

 

Timing and momentum matter if you're trying to mount an Oscar campaign against an obvious frontrunner. Shakespeare in Love and Crash timed their runs for Best Picture just right.

 

Timing also means everything for Best Actor and Actress. Try to be nominated against people who've already won or who aren't well known yet. Case in point: in 1940 Joan Fontaine was still a newcomer, Katharine Hepburn had won an Oscar, and Bette Davis had won two. Perfect timing for Ginger Rogers to win for Kitty Foyle.

 

In general, female newcomers (Audrey Hepburn, for instance) had a better shot at Best Actress than male newcomers (Peter O'Toole) at Best Actor.

 

Your chances for an acting award increase if you appear in a picture that gets lots of nominations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched a movie called REVOLUTIONARY ROAD. Is this considered a contender? It's surprisingly mediocre. The dialogue is so awkward I half expected it to turn out to be a dream sequence; a play within a play. The normally dependable actors can't do much with the unsatisfying script; consequently they've never looked worse. It's annoying, repetitive; like they meant to write something impressive, but never got around to it. I don't mean to break topic. But I'll be curious to see if such a disappointing project receives Hollywood's highest accolades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...