And the 2007 Academy Award Nominations Are...!! (FULL LIST!)- Page 9

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 1:33pm

No, it's a big difference.

You think "CHENO IS THE BEST!~!!!!" is bad?

That's heaven compared to what they get over there.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 1:41pm

Ouch.

[DG]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 1:41pm

"He'll go down in history as the best of those who never won if he doesn't win this year." (meaning Martin S.)

Did Hitchcock ever get one?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 1:45pm

*regrettably*
No, he didn't, DG.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 1:53pm

One of the true travesties in Hollywood history

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 1:54pm

Don't you read MY posts, DG? Sheesh.

[DG]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 1:57pm

lil - I SWEAR I do - really! I just missed THAT one. But I went back and found that post - that's quite a list

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:11pm

I didn't include Hitchcock, since he received an Academy Award in 1968 (the same year he got a lifetime achievement award from DGA, oddly enough).

Yeah, yeah...he never techincally "won". I get it. But, Scorcese has now been nominated just as many times.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:12pm

Hitch lost 5 times-Psycho, Lifeboat, Spellbound, Rear Window and Rebecca methinks...

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:14pm

Hitchcock was nominated for best picture for "Suspicion"...but, yes, only 5 times for director. Scorcese has passed him on that.

although, Scorcese has been up eight times if I include non-direction stuff, too.

My bad.

Updated On: 1/23/07 at 02:14 PM

[DG]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:16pm

I realize it's ALL subjective, but for me, there is NO comparison between Hitch and Scorcese.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:18pm

Not for me, either. There's a SLEW of directors I think are better than Marty...but of the major directors still making films, he is a giant.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:18pm

BINGO! (In response to what DG said)

Updated On: 1/23/07 at 02:18 PM

[DG]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:22pm

Very true, lil. I feel about Peter Weir the way some obviously do about Marty.

Thank goodness there's so many different types of artists making all different kinds of movies - eventually, EVERYONE gets something they love!

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:25pm

And Weir is an auteur in his own right. Of course, Woody is my fave, though I don't think he's necessarily the BEST.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:29pm

I was watching Joan Collins on an L.A. morning show today promoting her "Legends" show. She's a voting member of the Academy and has been since the '50s.

She was surprised that Dreamgirls didn't get nominated, but was quick to add that she never got a screener. None of her friends who vote did either. She got all the other films up for Best Picture but not Dreamgirls. She said she never saw it, so she didn't vote for it.

I checked with a couple of friends this morning who also vote (one in the Actors Branch and one in the Writers Branch)... they never got a Dreamgirls screener either... and one didn't see it, so they didn't vote for it either.

Now... I'm not suggesting that Dreamgirls lost its Best Picture nom for this reason alone... I don't believe that... but it sure as hell didn't help it any. And what the hell was Paramount/DreamWorks thinking if they didn't send it out? "Our movie's a shoo-in! We don't need no stinking screeners!"

In this day and age? Are they kidding? I can't believe they didn't send it out to the Academy members.

Joan Collins also said that she got THREE copies of "United 93." Three! (probably one for the Academy, one for being a SAG member, and one more... just to make SURE you really really watch it?)

[DG]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:34pm

best - that honestly IS pretty shocking. But, like you, I can't really place ALL the explanation there.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:37pm

Wow! Just wow!

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:53pm

DG---I can't claim that either... but since we can assume this movie was "close to being there," it might have been pushed into the top five, if all the members had seen it.

What's silly is even (and perhaps especially?) the low-budget indy films always send out screeners now.

My mom is a SAG member (not an Academy member) and she got The Departed and Venus just last week. SAG is HUGE! (90,000 members or something like that?)... and she got Venus??

But if Paramount's too cheap to send out 5,000 copies of Dreamgirls (in "the age of the screener") they've gotten what they deserve.

No movie is "too big" or "too sure" now to not have this built into their awards campaign budget. And in the grand scheme of things, it's not THAT expensive. Disney used to cop out on screeners because of piracy concerns (their movies were and are among the most pirated out there)... and maybe Paramount was worried that might be the case for Dreamgirls... but come on!

I just think it's cheap and foolish.

...Whether or not it cost them this nomination.

Updated On: 1/23/07 at 02:53 PM

[DG]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:57pm

best - I agree completely. I wonder if anyone else didn't send one out?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:58pm

That's too bad, b12b.

P.S. I was just going to say, it's "their," damn it!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 2:59pm

I would say that it probably played a huge part in them not getting the nod.

But....if people didn't vote for it becuase they didn't see it, then how did they vote for it in all of the other categories, mainly performances?

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 3:01pm

I'm told that Dreamgirls did send out to quite a few guilds. I think they were counting on the guilds to double as AMPAS voters.

[justagirl2]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 3:03pm

^ That's really interesting. I suppose, however, that Dreamgirls' lack of a nomination will be a heads up to Paramount (and other studios) from now on.

I'm pretty satisfied with the nominees. I'm sincerely hoping for a Scorcese win...though something tells me it won't happen. It'd be nice if he wasn't bound to be the Susan Lucci of the Best Director category. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. We'll see.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 3:03pm

That is surprising, Best. Usually Geffen & company are on top of details like that.

It's the kind of mistake that Harvey Weinstein never would have made back in Miramax's heyday (which is why they were so incredibly successful Oscar-wise for so many years).