BESIDES THE HOBBIT... what (potential) Oscar contender are you MOST excited to see?

[Siddon]

Barrymore.

[Kieran_Frost]

HITCHCOCK (2012)
Dir. Sacha Gervasi
Starring: Sir Anthony Hopkins [OSCAR], Dame Helen Mirren [OSCAR], Scarlet Johansson and Toni Collette [nom.]

Django Unchained is an Oscar contender?

Yeah, that one caught me by surprise as well
I mean, films like the Hobbit probably stand a good chance of winning an award for their effects or their musical scores but Django? That seems like a case of "One of these things is not like the others...".

Tarantino's last film was nominated for 8 Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Writing, and WON Best Supporting Actor. He was also nominated for Best Director for Pulp Fiction (1994) and WON Best Original Screenplay for the same film (which itself was up for 7 Oscars including Best Picture). Remember Tarantino actually directs very few films that are 100% "his"; he's only done 6 (counting Django Unchained as the 7th). So of his previous 6 films, 1/3 of them are major Oscar contenders. ADD TO THAT: Jackie Brown (1997) was up for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Forster) at the Oscars, as well as Golden Globe and SAG nom for Pam Grier (and a Golden Globe nom for Samuel L. Jackson also). Uma Thurman got a BAFTA and Golden Globe nom. for Kill Bill vol.1 (2003) and a Golden Globe nom. for both herself and David Carradine for Kill Bill vol. 2 (2004). ONLY his first film (before he/and his style was established) failed to garner award recognistion. Out of 6 films... 5 have had major award recognition for acting; with 3 (half) being up for an Oscar. I'd be VERY surprised for Leo not to get nominated for Best Supporting Actor this year.

Of those listed though I'm excited to see Life of Pi, like the Hobbit I'm not sure it'll get nominated for anything beyond its effects or music but I loved the book so I'm pumped for the film.

The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) was up for Best Picture for each film, WINNING Best Picture (and 11 other Oscars) in 2003. It was also up for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay for the 1st and the 3rd. I think it's a very good contendor for major awards.

So Django is an Oscar contender, but Cloud Atlas is not?

I did forget Cloud Atlas... but I thought it was meant to be a major letdown (hype vs quality). We shall see...

P.S. thank-you for merging the two threads, Mr Moderator.

[Kieran_Frost]

THE IMPOSSIBLE (2012)
Dir. Juan Anthonio Bayona
Starring: Naomi Watts [nom.], Ewan McGregor and Tom Holland

I'm not interested in the Hobbit.

No desire whatsoever to see The Hobbit, though.

But many are... if I put the Hobbit, it would win the poll; and we'd miss out on finding what OTHER (non-franchise) films are posters most excited for?

"Life of Pie"? There's already a parody film out?

Ahhh... boo... dyslexia STRIKES again...

It was a pretty good film. Great performances all around. I wouldn't be surprised to see De Niro get an nod for Best Supporting.

Apparently it's Jennifer Lawrence's performance that is getting the most buzz.

[Simbob4000]

HITCHCOCK (2012)
Dir. Sacha Gervasi
Starring: Sir Anthony Hopkins, Dame Helen Mirren, Scarlet Johansson and Toni Collette




Tarantino's last film was nominated for 8 Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Writing, and WON Best Supporting Actor. He was also nominated for Best Director for Pulp Fiction (1994) and WON Best Original Screenplay for the same film (which itself was up for 7 Oscars including Best Picture). Remember Tarantino actually directs very few films that are 100% "his"; he's only done 6 (counting Django Unchained as the 7th). So of his previous 6 films, 1/3 of them are major Oscar contenders. ADD TO THAT: Jackie Brown (1997) was up for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Forster) at the Oscars, as well as Golden Globe and SAG nom for Pam Grier (and a Golden Globe nom for Samuel L. Jackson also). Uma Thurman got a BAFTA and Golden Globe nom. for Kill Bill vol.1 (2003) and a Golden Globe nom. for both herself and David Carradine for Kill Bill vol. 2 (2004). ONLY his first film (before he/and his style was established) failed to garner award recognistion. Out of 6 films... 5 have had major award recognition for acting; with 3 (half) being up for an Oscar. I'd be VERY surprised for Leo not to get nominated for Best Supporting Actor this year.


The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) was up for Best Picture for each film, WINNING Best Picture (and 11 other Oscars) in 2003. It was also up for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay for the 1st and the 3rd. I think it's a very good contendor for major awards.


I did forget Cloud Atlas... but I thought it was meant to be a major letdown (hype vs quality). We shall see...

The only reason Return of the King won is because it was the end of the trilogy that had made tons of money...it was also a pretty weak year as far as Best Picture is concerned.

[Kieran_Frost]

LES MISÉRABLES (2012)
Dir. Tom Hooper [OSCAR]
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe [OSCAR], Anne Hathaway [nom.], Eddie Redmayne and Helena Bonham-Carter [nom.]

The only reason Return of the King won is because it was the end of the trilogy that had made tons of money...it was also a pretty weak year as far as Best Picture is concerned.

Regardless of why it won (and I would disagree with your analysis ): IT WON! (so there is precedence).

I would also add: all three were nominated for Best Picture, with the third becoming THE FIRST (and only... to date) fantasy film to win Best Picture. So, based on the previous track record it very much is a high contender for a Best Picture nomination (3/3 so far); and (therefore) the Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King (2003) winning Best Picture does seem less of a fluke. Remember the year of Avatar (2009) was a "pretty weak year"; and it made "a ton of money" (more than the Lord of the Rings, even?); and it DIDN'T win.

Lastly, it didn't "just" win Best Picture, it became one of only three films to EVER win 11 Oscars. Can you name the other two? (don't look it up, go on... have a guess)

P.S. I also wouldn't say Mystic River (2003), Lost in Translation (2003), Cold Mountain (2003), Finding Nemo (2003), Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World (2003), House of Sand and Fog (2003) and City of God (2003) make up a "weak" year (but I do so love most of those). At-least not weak enough to let a "sub-par" film walk away with a record Oscar pull.

[Simbob4000]

LES MISÉRABLES (2012)
Dir. Tom Hooper [OSCAR]
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe [OSCAR], Anne Hathaway [nom.], Eddie Redmayne and Helena Bonham-Carter [nom.]



Regardless of why it won (and I would disagree with your analysis ): IT WON! I would also add: all three were nominated for Best Picture, with the third becoming THE FIRST (and only... to date) fantasy film to win Best Picture. So, based on the previous track record it very much is a high contender for a Best Picture nomination (3/3 so far); and the Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King (2003) winning Best Picture does seem less of a fluke. The year of Avatar (2009) was a "pretty weak year"; and it made "a ton of money" (more than the Lord of the Rings, even?); and it DIDN'T win.

And remember, it didn't "just" win Best Picture, it became one of only three films to EVER win 11 Oscars. Can you name the other two? (don't look it up, go on... have a guess)

P.S. I also wouldn't say Mystic River (2003), Lost in Translation (2003), Cold Mountain (2003), Finding Nemo (2003), Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World (2003), House of Sand and Fog (2003) and City of God (2003) make up a "weak" year (but I do so love most of those). At-least not weak enough to let a "sub-par" film walk away with a record Oscar pull.

I didn't say it was a weak year for movies, I said it was a weak year for Best Picture...which it was. Hell, The Return of the King wasn't even the best movie in the Best Adapted Screenplay category. And how did Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World even get into the best picture race?

[Kieran_Frost]

LIFE OF PI (2012)
Dir. Ang Lee [OSCAR]
Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan and Gerard Depardieu [nom.]



THIS and the Master (2012) are the two I'm most excited for... after the Hobbit, OBVS! It's Ang Lee... that's all I need to know for me to go see it. No two movies of his ever feel the same, and he's delivered some of my all time favourite films Brokeback Mountain (2005), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) and Sense & Sensibility (1995). It looks visually GORGEOUS; and while I haven't read the book, I hear it's excellent (so hey, a great story is always a major help).

[jesse_custer]

I didn't say it was a weak year for movies, I said it was a weak year for Best Picture...which it was. Hell, The Return of the King wasn't even the best movie in the Best Adapted Screenplay category. And how did Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World even get into the best picture race?

Master and Commander is easily the best movie out of the ones he just listed.

[Kieran_Frost]

LINCOLN (2012)
Dir. Steven Spielberg [OSCAR]
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis [OSCAR], Sally Fields [OSCAR], Tommy Lee Jones [OSCAR] and Joseph Gordon-Levitt


For me, this is a PASS! I have not been excited for a Steven Spielberg movie in years... and have not enjoyed one of his films in even longer. It's a strong cast BUT Spielberg was never an actor's director; so either the performances will be a walk in the park (and therefore unimpressive) OR worse completely free-reign (which could lead to some serious scenery-chewing). Of this list, this is probably the only one I won't try and see, even IF it gets favourable reviews (if it's oddly the front-runner, THEN I might give it a go... but that's a lot of "if's").

[Greg Anderson]

Lincoln was actually really good. Daniel Day-Lewis was great and I was surprised how funny they made him. Tommy Lee Jones stole the show every scene he was in and Sally Field did her damn thing. Very well directed film all around. It may be considered "Oscar Bait" but in the end, if the film is a good film, who cares?

I was heavily disappointed with The Master. Besides top notch performances from the two leads, the movie seemed rather aimless. There were times when it would get me, and then it let me go. First Anderson film I've been disappointed with. And I generally LOVE his movies. But that said, if Phoenix doesn't win an Oscar based on his performance for this film, SOMETHING IS WRONG!!!!

[jesse_custer]

Kieran, what do you mean "if" Lincoln receives favorable reviews? Lincoln has gotten very good reviews, and the acting has pretty much received unanimous praise.

And this is the first time I've heard that Spielberg can't direct actors that well. I think that's pretty ridiculous.

[Vibranium]

Kieran, what do you mean "if" Lincoln receives favorable reviews? Lincoln has gotten very good reviews, and the acting has pretty much received unanimous praise.

And this is the first time I've heard that Spielberg can't direct actors that well. I think that's pretty ridiculous.

Lincoln is getting Oscars....I could see Daniel Day Lewis getting it as the field isn't so hot this year IMO

[the goddamn batman]

the Lincoln trailer left me really cold, but the hell if I'm not watching Daniel Day Lewis in just about anything.

[Greg Anderson]

Lincoln is getting Oscars....I could see Daniel Day Lewis getting it as the field isn't so hot this year IMO

I dunno. I see Joaquin Phoenix being his competition this year. And I'd be shocked if he doesn't get it. I think Denzel for Flight might also get a nom.

[jesse_custer]

Phoenix isn't beloved by the Hollywood community. Everyone loves Day-Lewis. So I'm betting Day-Lewis over Phoenix (if I had to).

We have to remember that the Oscars is nothing more than a popularity contest. This is not to say Day-Lewis or Nicholson or Brando didn't deserve their wins, but it's all about buzz, ultimately.