Oppenheimer - Awards Speculation
Posts: 131
Joined:
November 2014
read it somewhere : bigger the flop..better the awardseescorpius wrote: ↑December 10th, 2023, 10:12 pmI am quite worried too lol KOTFM seems to be doing a little better with the critics.
Posts: 131
Joined:
November 2014
I guess I kept thinking of EEAAO last year when they did really well with the critics too.666kalpa wrote: ↑December 10th, 2023, 10:53 pmread it somewhere : bigger the flop..better the awardseescorpius wrote: ↑December 10th, 2023, 10:12 pmI am quite worried too lol KOTFM seems to be doing a little better with the critics.
https://nextbestpicture.com/the-2023-lo ... oioezKXjV0
its over Nolan bros...
everywhere its
Past Lives.. Poor Things.. Flower Moon.. Holdovers.. Anatomy of Fall..
its over Nolan bros...
everywhere its
Past Lives.. Poor Things.. Flower Moon.. Holdovers.. Anatomy of Fall..
Posts: 255
Joined:
August 2020
Killers is the critical darling but I think Oppenheimer is going to win big with the film awards circles
Let's not pretend that Killers of the Flower Moon's reception, high placement on year-end lists, and award noms and wins, isn't being heavily boosted by two factors:
1. The extreme affability of the director, who comes off as a chill, teddy bear grandpa who is always there for you, and who is of an age where it wouldn't be unnatural for him to pass at any moment, making everyone more reverent and careful of what they say about him.
2. The diversity narrative of a $200 million mega-budget movie shining a giant spotlight on Native American suffering for the first time in...forever? Heaping praise on Killers of the Flower Moon makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like you've done your part in making the world a better place, that you're part of something important, etc. It's this Oscar season's equivalent of pressing the Facebook Like button after a disaster. People will never turn down a chance to feel like they've done something to help while doing nothing.
These two factors are great marketing points (although the film bombed at the box office, so...), but they have nothing to do with the quality of the film itself and should be irrelevant to the film's Oscar chances. Sadly, that's not how Oscar campaigning works. It's not about quality. It's about the narrative.
Now compare that to Mr. Nolan and Oppenheimer:
1. The dude is the single most powerful director in the world at the moment, wanting for nothing, can command studio heads to his home so that he can pick and choose which studio gets to give him a blank check for whatever he wants to make. That's not exactly a stirring narrative that builds the kind of "We need to give it to him now or it may never happen!" urgency that is necessary for a win.
2. The subject of nuclear weapons, while timely, doesn't offer an emotional hook for an Oscar campaign. "If you vote for us, you are standing in solidarity with those poor, innocent Native Americans who were brutally murdered by evil white men" vs. "nuclear weapons...bad?"
1. The extreme affability of the director, who comes off as a chill, teddy bear grandpa who is always there for you, and who is of an age where it wouldn't be unnatural for him to pass at any moment, making everyone more reverent and careful of what they say about him.
2. The diversity narrative of a $200 million mega-budget movie shining a giant spotlight on Native American suffering for the first time in...forever? Heaping praise on Killers of the Flower Moon makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like you've done your part in making the world a better place, that you're part of something important, etc. It's this Oscar season's equivalent of pressing the Facebook Like button after a disaster. People will never turn down a chance to feel like they've done something to help while doing nothing.
These two factors are great marketing points (although the film bombed at the box office, so...), but they have nothing to do with the quality of the film itself and should be irrelevant to the film's Oscar chances. Sadly, that's not how Oscar campaigning works. It's not about quality. It's about the narrative.
Now compare that to Mr. Nolan and Oppenheimer:
1. The dude is the single most powerful director in the world at the moment, wanting for nothing, can command studio heads to his home so that he can pick and choose which studio gets to give him a blank check for whatever he wants to make. That's not exactly a stirring narrative that builds the kind of "We need to give it to him now or it may never happen!" urgency that is necessary for a win.
2. The subject of nuclear weapons, while timely, doesn't offer an emotional hook for an Oscar campaign. "If you vote for us, you are standing in solidarity with those poor, innocent Native Americans who were brutally murdered by evil white men" vs. "nuclear weapons...bad?"
Posts: 131
Joined:
November 2014
Honestly I see people circlejerk around Scorsese all the time yet they don't get the same bashful treatment as Nolan fans. Like everytime you say something negative about him or his films people will just say "but he's a legendary director and made all these great film!"Oku wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 3:55 amLet's not pretend that Killers of the Flower Moon's reception, high placement on year-end lists, and award noms and wins, isn't being heavily boosted by two factors:
1. The extreme affability of the director, who comes off as a chill, teddy bear grandpa who is always there for you, and who is of an age where it wouldn't be unnatural for him to pass at any moment, making everyone more reverent and careful of what they say about him.
2. The diversity narrative of a $200 million mega-budget movie shining a giant spotlight on Native American suffering for the first time in...forever? Heaping praise on Killers of the Flower Moon makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like you've done your part in making the world a better place, that you're part of something important, etc. It's this Oscar season's equivalent of pressing the Facebook Like button after a disaster. People will never turn down a chance to feel like they've done something to help while doing nothing.
These two factors are great marketing points (although the film bombed at the box office, so...), but they have nothing to do with the quality of the film itself and should be irrelevant to the film's Oscar chances. Sadly, that's not how Oscar campaigning works. It's not about quality. It's about the narrative.
Now compare that to Mr. Nolan and Oppenheimer:
1. The dude is the single most powerful director in the world at the moment, wanting for nothing, can command studio heads to his home so that he can pick and choose which studio gets to give him a blank check for whatever he wants to make. That's not exactly a stirring narrative that builds the kind of "We need to give it to him now or it may never happen!" urgency that is necessary for a win.
2. The subject of nuclear weapons, while timely, doesn't offer an emotional hook for an Oscar campaign. "If you vote for us, you are standing in solidarity with those poor, innocent Native Americans who were brutally murdered by evil white men" vs. "nuclear weapons...bad?"
KOTFM is totally a white man's take on the history no matter how much his fanboys tried to spin it. Obviously the Oscars isn't just a popularity contest and quality is important too, but most of the non-cinephiles I know thought it was long and boring. If it wins it will remind me of Crash all over again even though KOTFM is better made than cringy Crash.I was probably more optimistic before all the critics lists came out because Oppenheimer got a lot of industry insiders' praise.
Posts: 1519
Joined:
January 2013
Really, Oppenheimer is not the type of film that does well with the LA critics group (Killer of the Flower Moon didn't due too hot either, Gladstone didn't even win) so Oppenheimer getting runner-up best picture is actually pretty good.
Golden Globes Nominations
Best Movie
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Screenplay
Best Original Score
Best Cinematic and Box-Office Achievement (?)
Best Movie
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Screenplay
Best Original Score
Best Cinematic and Box-Office Achievement (?)
Posts: 1519
Joined:
January 2013
Nominated for everything it possible could be. Nice that Blunt got in, but it helps that the categories is six nominees. It's got a good shot for drama, but I'd give Killers the edge right now, also don't sleep on The Zone of Interest. Comedy is really strong too, with Barbie, Poor Things, and The Holdovers.
It has really been a strong year for movies...too bad Oppenheimer didn't come out the last couple of previous years, it would have dominated.
It has really been a strong year for movies...too bad Oppenheimer didn't come out the last couple of previous years, it would have dominated.
