Your Writers Guild of America nominations:
Original Screenplay
- (500) Days of Summer – Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
- Avatar – James Cameron
- The Hangover – Jon Lucas & Scott Moore
- The Hurt Locker – Mark Boal
- A Serious Man – Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
Adapted Screenplay
- Crazy Heart – Scott Cooper; Based on the novel by Thomas Cobb
- Julie & Julia – Nora Ephron; Based on the books Julie & Julia by Julie Powell and My Life in France by Julia Child with Alex Prud’homme
- Precious – Geoffrey Fletcher; Based on the novel Push by Sapphire
- Star Trek – Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman; Based upon Star Trek, Created by Gene Roddenberry
- Up in the Air – Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner; Based upon the novel by Walter Kirn
Documentary Screenplay
- Against the Tide – Richard Trank
- Capitalism: A Love Story – Michael Moore
- The Cove – Mark Monroe
- Earth Days – Robert Stone
- Good Hair – Chris Rock & Jeff Stilson and Lance Crouther and Chuck Sklar
- Soundtrack for a Revolution – Bill Guttentag & Dan Sturman
These are really the nominees for the “Best Screenplay Written by a WGA Member in Good Standing Award” since so many were disqualified this year. If you don’t see your favorite on one of these lists, it might not have been so much a snub or even a sign of future Oscar doom. The screenplay simply may not have been eligible due to the writer not being in the WGA. Inglourious Basterds, A Single Man, The Road, An Education, Me and Orson Welles, In the Loop and District 9 are among the noteworthy screenplays that were not eligible this year.
But enough about who didn’t get nominated. Let’s talk about who did. Even the most enthusiastic Avatar reviews have admitted the screenplay is the weak link in the chain of Pandoran awesomeness, so a stamp of approval (even in a thinned out field) from the WGA goes a long way toward burnishing Avatar’s Oscar chances. It probably wouldn’t have made a difference if it hadn’t gotten nominated (though even Titanic did), but its inclusion is an indication of wider industry acceptance. Can it overcome Oscar’s aversion to sci-fi/fantasy or the large acting branch’s aversion to motion-capture technology?
Yeah, probably.
via: Awards Daily
Filed under: Awards
Tags: WGA, Writers Guild of America
Honestly, people. What did The Hangover offer in terms of writing that was even above average? I finally saw it a couple weeks ago and was baffled at the discussions about Oscar potential.
You’re asking the wrong guy. I didn’t even think it was funny which ought to be the first order of business of a comedy screenplay.
Millions of moviegoers disagree however and I’m not going to argue with them.
I haven’t seen The Hangover Daniel but it sure seems to inspire love or hate responses. Craig, I actually think the Avatar script is skilfully contructed and effective in engaging the audience. For me it maximized the high tech format’s (3D and FX) ability to amplify visceral sensation and emotion. That said, occasional lines and the odd sequence were cheesy as hell.
It is kind of funny that Star Trek ends up in adapted screenplay, since so much of felt unoriginal to me. Beyond some of the dialogue, I can’t believe that script is up for any awards.
I haven’t seen a single one of the nominated docs (grumble) but I’d love to see A Serious Man or even The Hurt Locker win in the original category (although I think some elements of the THL script are weak).
For Adapted, I’d have to go with Julie & Julia because I have not seen Precious or Crazy Heart.
Sartre, I’ve had a few discussions elsewhere about all the issues folks have with the Avatar script. If it works for you, all the better, but there’s a lot to legitimately criticize there.
As for The Hangover, I enjoyed parts of it but I can’t help but feel many of those moments were ad libbed.
Cameron gets knocked all the time (by me included) for being a crummy writer, but I think it’s fair to say he’s an effective one and I don’t mean that as a backhanded compliment.
For me the story was a little too derivative to be considered great, but it was a perfect springboard for the kind of movie he wanted to make.
Joel, I’m not saying there isn’t a basis for criticism directed at Avatar’s script. It’s no sacred cow to me. I just think that the script’s effectiveness (which does reflect a measure of skill) contributed more to the film’s critical and box office success than it is typically given credit for.
I agree Craig -> “For me the story was a little too derivative to be considered great, but it was a perfect springboard for the kind of movie he wanted to make.”
Also. Crazy Heart? Give me a break. It’s the biggest awards scam of the year. If Fox Searchlight wasn’t pushing it, this made-for-tv-grade movie of the week would be gathering dust on the DVD rental shelf right now. Critics are giving it the benefit of a doubt because they smell Oscar blood in the water.
Ok, go ahead and award Jeff Bridges. He was good. But don’t tell me this thing was well written.
If your experience with Crazy Heart is accurate, then it adds fuel to the fire that sometimes films are nominated based on name recognition alone. That is a depressing thought. It wouldn’t surprise me with the Oscars, but the guild awards should be held to a higher standard.
Bridges is good. He’s as deserving of a nomination as anyone, but the movie he’s in sucks. I know I’m pretty much alone on that score,but I really think it’s getting the benefit of a doubt it wouldn’t be getting if critics didn’t know in advance that the studio was pushing it.
I’m glad the Coens are in the mix. The others are variously predictable, disappointing or both. I haven’t seen A Serious Man and I haven’t seen The Hangover or Crazy Heart. Because of all the ineligible titles, this award feels relevant really only unto itself. It’s not doing a lot for me this year, though it’s usually my favorite guild.
“this award feels relevant really only unto itself”
I agree. Though I kind of respect them being hard assed about it, this isn’t really an accurate reflection of the best writing of 2009. That’s not to say that it should be, but I think it’s an important reminder that these awards (and this goes for Oscar too) aren’t chosen for our benefit, they’re chosen for the benefit of the choosing body.
Across the different film guilds the nominations and winners I tend to be most disappointed with are those delivered by the writers and film score dudes. In both cases they seem to unimaginatively endorse the latest offerings from established talent and ignore innovation and ambition.
In general or this year? Again, when you’re talking about any sort of groupthink, the inclination tends to be away from originality and innovation.
It’s why I take all of these awards with a grain of salt.
Every year (with notable exceptions like No Country). And I’m sure your explanation for the outcomes I feel disappointed by is correct.
I’m still stunned by 2007. Not only was No Country the awards darling, but There Will Be Blood was in the mix as well. Two films I ordinarily wouldn’t have considered Oscary.
Industry professionals are just as affected by advertising and promotion as anyone else. Physicians recommend pharmaceuticals that have been made known to them by industry reps and glossy brochures. The same holds true for guild members who don’t have the time to do research and ponder. That’s why known quantities get more attention and, therefore, recognition. It’s almost always about the money and how group think affects outcome.
I’m disappointed to see Julie & Julia on the list. The Hangover is a film I’m ambivalent about. Parts of it were quite clever and amusing, while other parts were simply stupid and hackey.
You’re right Pierre, It’s important to remember that these are people as well as professionals. They’ve got a big pile of screeners to go through and they’re most likely to be drawn towards the ones that are getting talked about the most. Human nature. It might not even be a case of them not liking a certain film, but that they simply never saw it.
STAR TREK and THE HANGOVER?
Dr. Evil does the Macarena! “I’m hip.”
Christian, just you wait until Star Trek gets an Oscar nomination for best picture.
Oh, I have no doubt. That still doesn’t make it anything more than the lightweight pop spectacle that it is. But seriously, if ST could get a Best Picture nom, STAR TREK 2: WRATH OF KHAN should have qualified.
Perhaps with 10 nominees it would have.
KHAAAAAANNNNN!!!