Ben Affleck can still win Best Director at this year's Oscars
It is unpresidented that the winner of Best Director at the Golden Globes, SAG Awards, and Producers' Guild Awards does not also go on to win Best Director at the Academy Awards. It just does NOT happen. People will do a write-in vote for Ben Affleck. Write-in votes have won in the past. So don't be surprised if you see this actor cum director accept the big prize come Sunday.
Banned in the 1930s.
Why was Shirley Temple banned?
[quote]It is unpresidented
The voting is done by computer nowadays....there is no where to write anything.
Oh, double-down dear ya, R4.
Streisand won (tied) by write-in votes in '68.
no she didn't r7...you can't be written in if your name is already on the ballot.
R7 is still smoking whatever they were smoking in 1968.
No, the tied person was written in, not Streisand.
Katharine Hepburn was the other person....she was also on the ballot.
I'm an Academy voter and I wrote in Affleck. I know tons of people who did too.
you wrote it on your computer monitor r12...is it still there?
LOL @ r1
R13, obviously when people say write in, they mean type in, you idiot. When people say they wrote a book, do you also ask them what type of ink they used?
there is no space to type it...the voting system lists the five nominees and you check a box....
Why bother; Argo wasn't that good.
With all the Affleck write-in votes thrown out under the rules, it's interesting to consider what affect all the wasted vote will have on the selection of the winner. It may be the case that only the second or third best of the nominees gets the Oscar.
I like Spielberg, but I don't get why people think he should win for Lincoln. It's a decent movie, but directing wise, he's done much better. It's far from his best work.
I wrote in Affleck on my computer ballot, but after I sent it in now I have "Ben Affleck" written across my computer screen and can't get rid of it!
Spielberg is a shoe in for the oscar. No way he'll lose.
Why is Spielberg so deserving?
Why Ben Affleck is so deserving?
Both movies were OK. Nothing extraordinary.
Amour and Life of Pi are truly works of art.
Spielberg should get it because he's a professional director.
Ang Lee is going t win.
It'll be the most embarassing award of the night. I can imagine the audience thinking, we'll here's the biggest joke of the night coming up. Probably at least Lee & Speilberg kinda hope they don't win.
Will the producers pan to Affleck when they present the award. Too delicious not to.
R22, I said I think he is a shoe in and that there is no way he'll lose. I didn't say he was deserving
Just to rub it in one more time, the producers of the broadcast actually asked Affleck to PRESENT the Best Director Oscar (which, BTW should go to Ang Lee - that film is a director's masterpiece).
Affleck turned them down - so they asked Jennifer Garner - she also said no. Not sure who they ended up with...
Ang Lee will win. Or Ben Zeitlen.
[quote]Spielberg is a shoe in for the oscar.
What kind of shoe?
OK, I'll bite. Exactly when did someone win an oscar without being nominated?
There was such an uproar about Bette Davis not being nominated for "Of Human Bondage" in 1934, that the Academy, for the first and only time, said people could write in their own candidate. But Davis still lost (to Claudette Colbert).
[quote]OK, I'll bite. Exactly when did someone win an oscar without being nominated?
Cinematographer Hal Mohr won in 1935 for "A Midsummer Night's Dream" as a write-in.
As others have said, Ang Lee should win for Life of Pi. He made a film out of a book thought unadaptable and made many cynical people actually appreciate 3D for the first time. The film's a directorial masterpiece.
Yes, there are some issues with the film as a whole (the ending mostly), but just looking at direction I can't think of any other film that should beat it.
But nowadays the Academy would have to sanction the write-in, post-nominations. THR covered this and tried to launch a write-in campaign last month. It's not going to happen.
I think it would be great if Ang Lee won and Life of Pi was an upset in the Best Picture category. It's been hugely successful world-wide, approaching a gross of $700 M.
Why would they ask Jennifer Garner to present Best Director? She's just a B-list indie actress.
I wrote in Affleck too. Where should I send my ballot?
What is the difference between the award for Best Picture and Best Director? I mean, in the category of Best Director the winners are judged on their movie, are they not? And how is that different from what is judged in the Best Picture category? It seems like two awards for the same output.
[quote] What is the difference between the award for Best Picture and Best Director? I mean, in the category of Best Director the winners are judged on their movie, are they not? And how is that different from what is judged in the Best Picture category? It seems like two awards for the same output.
Good question. And of course, if this was life and death it would bear further investigation, but I have thoughts anyway. I think in a lot of ways you would need to be on the set to know who did the best job directing: did he direct the actors to better performances? Did he shape the material, improving it in the process? Did he settle disputes/arguments that may have derailed the movie? Did he choose the right takes that played the best?
Great analysis, R38.
Just heard two different critics on two different stations say the exact same thing: that "Argo" is going to win Best Picture chiefly because the Academy passed over Ben Affleck for Best Director "and Hollywood felt sorry for him."
Yes, Ben, you should be so proud.
I loved most of the movies in this category but Argo does deserve to win.
Lucille Ball was going to try for a write in win for best actress for "Your, Mine and Ours," but Gary Morton talked her out of it.
Did not know that Clooney was supposed to direct "Argo" but couldn't due to a scheduling conflict, so Affleck, who was already cast in the film, volunteered to step in as director, too (Clooney did remain as a producer).
Heard that story this morning.
When Ben gets the Oscar for Best Picture (he's a producer), his only words should be "ARGO FUCK YOURSELF".
R44 has closed the thread.
R37 and R38 raise good points. I'm not a film industry insider but I wonder if: since the award for Best Picture goes actually to the Producer, I think the Academy recognizes that a LOT of things go in to producing a film.
But yes, what IS the Best Director being nominated for, outside of the film? So it's like different critics/other people are quoted as saying almost every year:
"How can the Best Director not have directed the Best Film?" Well, sometimes the Academy "splits the baby" - FOsse winning for Cabaret, but The Godfather (I) winning Best Picture.
This year, I think the people saying that the whole 9 pix thing may have screwed over certain directors - Affleck, Bigelow - have a point.
But off the top of my own pointy head, I think there's some - jealousy? envy? of Affleck that prevents older director-voters from wanting to give it to him JUST yet.]
I could be wrong...
[quote]It may be the case that only the second or third best of the nominees gets the Oscar.
Isn't that usually the case?
Do people even think when they type something like unpresidented, which gets a red fucking line under it, or are we so far down the road to illiteracy that it just floats on by? "They'll know what I mean." Yeah, it means you're kind of stupid.
It's funny how Ben Affleck being omited in the director race caused an outcry.
If he had been nominated, would people sing his praise ? I bet they'd say : " Hollywood gives no chance to outsiders! Argh! They didn't nominate the guy from Beasts of the Southern Wild nor Michael Haneke. They take no risk and never think outside the box!".
Well, they tried something different.
I understand his omission was unkind and smacks of young men being put down by old men, but still, Affleck wasn't the best director this year.
I like Argo, but the Affleck snub is not worse than Bigelow or Tarentino.
(Or than DiCaprio as best supporting actor for that matter ...).
[quote]Do people even think when they type something like unpresidented, which gets a red fucking line under it, or are we so far down the road to illiteracy that it just floats on by?
Unfortunately, most browsers do not have spellcheck. I know IE doesn't (unless the newest version does). I believe the red line is only on Firefox.
If Ben Affleck was black, Poz Face Obama would be on TV declaring it racism.
I don't recall Ben ever being as bald as that "before" pic.
R52. That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.
F&F for the tool at R51.
Now they're saying Ang Lee, who seemed to be the forgotten filmmaker - much more than non-nominees Bigelow and Ben "The Hair" Affleck. And I hope he does, if only to make up once again for Brokeback Mountain not winning best picture.
Yes, R44, I'm sure he'd bash the Academy with his second Oscar in hand. He's too political and knows now that he's almost assured a Best Director win the next time he does anything remotely good.
[quote]What is the difference between the award for Best Picture and Best Director? I mean, in the category of Best Director the winners are judged on their movie, are they not? And how is that different from what is judged in the Best Picture category? It seems like two awards for the same output.
I feel this year the difference is directorial vision. Argo is very good but the direction itself is anonymous. If you didn't know Ben Affleck directed it you couldn't really tell.
OTOH, Beasts of the Southern Wild and Amour in particular show a very specific artistic vision. To put it crassly, Zeitlin directed the shit out of it and Haneke is one of the most distinctive voices in current world cinema, a latter-day Ingmar Bergman.
If I had to bet, I'd say enough directors assumed that Ben would get in via other voters, so they voted for Zeitlin, Haneke, etc. And that isn't to say those two aren't totally deserving. That's what pisses me off the most, the idea that Michael Fucking Haneke, who should have won for Cache, did a lesser job than Bennifer.
I finally saw Argo last night and I liked it best of the movies ( I loved Lincoln, Silver Playbook and Zero). I think Ben deserved to be considered for best director.
I'll stick up for Affleck here, too.
It was a snub and he deserved a nomination for his GREAT work. It's become sport on DL to trash Ben Affleck, and it's tiresome.
He deserves the award as much as anyone nominated, let alone a nomination.
Just saying "there's nothing special about his work" doesn't make it so. However, since so many of you think that's quality film criticism, I'll say he deserved the nom and nothing more.
Unlikely, OP. If he couldn't even secure a nomination then it means the members of the Academy didn't think he was deserving of a win.
I don't want him to win anything.
R58 makes perfect sense, so everyone will ignore his post.
Then fucking write in his name, R59.
No, he can't.
Told you Affleck would win. Horrible speech though. Comparing Jennifer Gardener to Iran? WTF?
I couldn't listen to the speech.
[quote]Told you Affleck would win.
He didn't win Best Director, though. He won Best Picture, as a producer.
He was a babbling mess but seemed sincere and looked amazing.
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...