UKH

Anyone got any thoughts on this year's nominations?

I've not taken time to sit and process them but a few things have come up in my brain:

Aronofsky's "mother!" totally snubbed
A lot of love for some "relatively indie" films (Get Out, Lady Bird, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, The Shape of Water if that counts as relatively indie)
Greta Gerwig nominated for best original screenplay AND best director, MUST be a first for a woman
The Disaster Artist mostly snubbed (I thought Franco was in with a shout for Best Actor)
Best Original Screenplay is a very interesting category this year
Had expected that one of: Jennifer Lawrence (see above re: "mother!"), Jessica Chastain and Michelle Williams would be in as Best Actress
Christopher Plummer for Best Supporting Actor smacks, simultaneously, of awkwardness/bad taste, and some tokenism. 
Bladerunner 2049 up for a number of "technical" awards; I had wondered whether Ana de Armas who played holographic Joi might have been with a shout for Best Supporting Actress (but then what do I know, I thought Lindsay Duncan in "Gifted" might have been in there)
"Hostiles" totally snubbed despite a career-best performance from Christian Bale, and some brilliant and original/interesting cinematography
Logan for Best Adapted Screenplay is almost certainly a genre first. 
Lots of films in major categories that I have not seen (Call Me By My Name, Phantom Thread, The Shape of Water, Lady Bird) so I can't comment much on them. 

Overall these nominations look rather indie and leftfield, relative to throwing millions of Oscars at La La Land. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I sincerely hope that Bladerunner 2049 doesn't win Oscars for Sound Editing and Sound Mixing, because I thought that the crude, noisy, over-dramatised sound track represented all that is worst about some recent blockbusters. It seems to me that we have a new, mindless style (swamp everything with excessive noise and explosive sounds). Almost like a fashion. More a less an unbridled, over-the-top commercial for Dolby 7.1 surround sound. Turn the volume down a bit and it amounts to very little. It's very peculiar, really. The worst thing about it is that it works against the movie – it distracts attention from the emotional core of the story. The same can be said for the well-meaning, technically advanced, and entertaining 'The Greatest Showman'.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The Oscar nominated song "This Is Me" from The Greatest Showman bears a suspicious melodic similarity to "The Mother We Share" by the band Chvrches, and I say this as someone who is not a huge loyal devotee of Chvrches but who heard their first album (and that lead single) a fair few times way back 4 years ago or so. 

As for Bladerunner 2049, I politely disagree about the sound. I found it to be more than an enhancement and practically a CHARACTER. Even the SCORE was more just sound (not much melody to it). 
I watched it twice in the cinema, and the second time around, I was able to notice details without having to give over major parts of brain to following the plot. I picked up nuances in the acting, plus really absorbed technical details like the edge to edge visual perfection in every frame, and also the way that sound was being used. 
I am all too aware that you have worked in this field and I respect your opinion but as a Plebeian viewer, I liked it. As did all my friends who saw it. 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

In what way was The Greatest Showman "technically advanced"? 

If you say "realistic CGI lions", I'll demand that you go to the optician

In reply to Blue Straggler:

No, I was thinking of the very sophisticated camera movements, and the lip sync which I think may be using some kind of 'video rewrite' technique, but I don't know. (It would probably kept v much as a trade secret anyway.)

Yes, the music had an awful 'sameyness'.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Blade runner has to win something . It was epic both to eyes and ears 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Always lost of films I haven't seen as they aren't out here yet, so can't really comment.  Biggest stick-on for a winner has surely to be Zimmer for Dunkirk though.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Not trying to derail the thread, but are the Oscars really worthy of the pageantry and media coverage?  I don't read much these days, but few films move me to the degree a good book does.  When you compare the earnings and limited PR and budgets that surrounds a typical novel, with the extremes that surround the launch of a film, film seems promoted enough without needing the mutual backslapping of an awards ceremony.  I remember watching Oscars as a child and even then thinking "why are these people being treated like royalty?".

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Couldn't agree more, Gordon.

I have never had an eagerly awaited film ruined so much by the sound quality- at least a couple of friends and I think that it actually masks crucial dialogue at times.

(I see that BBC's latest sci fi thriller is "paying homage" to Bladerunner2 's sound track)

I enjoyed everything else about the film, by the way.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'm baffled as to why 3 Billboards is being considered as Oscar material. I admit I haven't seen a lot of films this year but was the rest really so poor?

 

Both my wife and I gave the film 3 or 31/2 stars at most.

In reply to Removed User:

If The Shape of Water lives up to its THIRTEEN nominations I’ll be pleasantly surprised, given Guillermo Del Toro’s rather patchy form. I grant that this one is indeed being seen as his towering masterpiece so I am optimistic, but THIRTEEN. Crikey. That usually results in 5 or 6 wins and without having yet seen either film, I think Best Actress is a head to head between Sally Hawkins and Saoirse Ronan, with Hawkins favourite because her character is “disabled”...

In reply to Removed User:

You and your wife are definitely different to me and my girlfriend. Three Billboards gets 9/10 from both of us. When you have Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell at full chat then you'll do well to f*ck it up. Chuck in Peter Dinklage and Clark Peters and it's a home run. The lightness of foot with which it moved from dark to hilarious to devastating to dramatic, without feeling forced, was a masterclass. Horses for courses?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Dinklage’s character’s existence in that film was pointless, distracting and made a massive waste of time in the final act. Characters with less screen time were more intriguing . Also I didn’t think his performance was up to his usual standard and definitely fell short of the performance of others in Three Billboards...

 

i gave it 7/10; explanation is in January Film Thread

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I think Best Actress is McDormand's to lose. Similarly it'll be surprising if Gary Oldman doesn't win Best Actor. Interesting that the acting catagories include Meryl Streep and Daniel Day-Lewis, and they aren't the front runners. 

Nice to see Greta Gerwig get a nod, plus the first ever female cinematographer for Mudbound.

It's surprising that The Post got so snubbed, plus it would have been nice to see Detroit feature a bit more, esp for John Boyega in the acting categories. 

Overall I think it's a strong year, a bit more interesting than some previous lists maybe. Having said that, The Boss Baby?! Really?

In reply to patrick_b:

I was thinking about Detroit late last night. Not so much for Boyega but for the cinematography and notably Will Poulter who gave one of the most terrifying screen performances I've ever seen. 
Gerwig deserved a nod for best supporting actress last year for 20th Century Women. 
As I mentioned in the OP, interesting that she is up for screenplay and directing although my OP is wrong; she's not the first woman nominated in both categories - Sofia Coppola was nominated for both those for Lost In Translation. 

In reply to patrick_b:

A pattern that started, I think, with Erin Brockovich and that only ended last year (depending on whether you feel Leo in The Revenant was playing the real Hugh Glass), was that at least one of Best Actor or Best Actress is someone playing a "real life" character (regardless of whether that real-life character is famous). I used to have some success predicting the winners based on this. 

But recently a friend of mine pointed out a trend at least in Best Actress. They alternate between giving it to someone in an arty film and giving to someone in a more commercial film. Of course, definitions can be subjective and twisted around, but I looked back and she sort of had a point. Might be something to bear in mind. But then, is Three Billboards "small and arty", or big and commercial? Shape of Water? Lady Bird? 
It's why we thought Lawrence might be in with a shout for "mother!"