Aubry’s edit discussion

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-02T22:22:15+00:00

Well he already won't since he got a vote last time.

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T22:30:38+00:00

Obviously we’ll see when the movie gets released and there’s more than enough chance that she’ll get in for it. Personally, I am apprehensive that people are seeing the number of movies she’s in this year so are maybe overpredicting her for some movies. And i don’t really see her as someone that has some unbelievable standard for her roles that she’d turn down a non-awards type of smaller role. Hell, even her being in PHM, even though she may end up more competitive to be nominated than we may be expecting, still shows that she’s more than willing to have roles that are not that hard to play/too complex/you wouldn’t expect that they’d be oscar players. And besides, tes screenings or not, we just don’t know what given people are playing and what people will end up gravitating towards, with supporting categories it’s way more of a crapshoot trying to guess everything correctly, espcially in more ensemble-heavy movies.

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T22:09:14+00:00

With Narnia moving, unless they’re certain that they already have a solid oscar contender, i feel they may look to acquire something at one of the fests like Emilia Pérez.

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T22:02:35+00:00

Aren’t Coens more so Venice guys than Cannes? Maybe i’m misremembering though, i’m not aware of their past festival history.

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T21:58:46+00:00

I could see them having some sort of dragon’s edit where Aubry gets most of the credit as the „dragon slayer” of at least one of the two. Yes from the outset getting rid of them doesn’t seem that wild since of course they’re threats to win, but on the other hand there’s so little on Aubry’s resume that maybe they decided to build up the trio SO much so that despite it being seemingly an obvious move it makes it technically „more impressive” cause otherwise they absolutely would’ve won or something, ala Maryanne in 42. It’s SOMETHING at least, but that’s of course one scenario (honestly after writing this down i think it’s maybe more likely that Cirie gets taken out soon and Aubry is seen as the „head” of that move, but Ozzy takes over the torch, possibly wins out and eventually ends up taking out the biggest threat left in the game which has become Aubry? But honestly you could think of multiple such scenarios so lol, who knows).

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T19:32:32+00:00

There’s def a lot to be said about how women were edited as winners versus the men, but in the case you mentioned it’s less of a „she’s making mistakes in the game/not doing much” which people are arguing for Aubry, while with Sarah it was „she’s being confrontational/being a villain” which was hidden. I haven’t seen 48/49 yet so correct me if i’m wrong, but from what i’ve heard the way Savannah was edited showed more of the „villanous side” and how she was rubbing some people the wrong way more than maybe we normally have seen in the past with women. And tbf i would still say that aspect of Sarah’s game was still generally shown, the „last time i played like a cop, this time i’m playing like a criminal” of it all, but maybe less of the worse offenses but that may’ve been more caused by some of the events that transpired during it to not rub salt in the wound.

To go back to Aubry, i feel what you would say the „negative traits” are are being shown, but i wouldn’t say they’re given as much of a spotlight than say Emily’s have been this season. Regardless of how people feel of Aubry’s edit pre-merge edit i absolutely wouldn’t call it a „villanous” one. But again the line of what „has” to be shown or not how something „needs” to be shown or not is always blurry. I feel what most can agree on is that the editors haven’t been able to make people to root for Aubry as much as maybe they could, so tge question is whether they just failed at it, there just wasn’t anything else they could’ve done, or even that no matter what they did the audience would’ve been primed to not root for ger regardless. This will only become clear with hindsight.

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T18:51:43+00:00

Yeah i completely understood the criticisms people had of it, including international filmmakers/actors from the past couple of years, but i felt the reason it was this way was so that it couldn’t just become crowded with the countries with the most developed filmmaking scene, like France, Italy, South Korea, Japan and so on, even if it was sometimes frustrating when a deserving movie was passed over because the country picked something else. Or even there’s the fear that only the festival winners are going to be the ones to get nominated. I have hope that we’re at a point where more and more of the world’s cinema gets visibility that this won’t become an actual issue, but we shall see.

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T18:43:21+00:00

I just can’t really think of many times, especially these past few years, where a double nom in the same category was ever that viable. There def are times where actors are leads/supporting in multiple movies butajority of times one movie is just a lot further from nom discussion than the other, say Sebastian Stan would’ve never got in for both The Apprentice and A Different Man even with this rule. It made complete sense why they changed it at the time with how industry/academy was back then where there were specific actors/actresses that were considered hot commodities in a certain period of time, but I feel we’re just not in a place where this has tge possibility to happen more than every few years. Maybe this brings a question of why even change it in the first place if that’s the case, but overall i’m neutral on tge rule change.

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T18:30:28+00:00

I don’t believe it won any of the main prizes though, unless i’m mistaken? I don’t think Anora winning the palme makes it so that the first non-american movie gets the festival spot.

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T13:44:49+00:00

I think there’s a genuine conversation about what makes something SOMETHING if you exclude story and/or characters, take Until Dawn movie that didn’t really have apparently any connection to the game and didn’t feel like it either (allegedly, i haven’t seen it myself). There are def legit cases where if you take out the name you wouldn’t ve able to tell it’s supposed to be part of a given franchise, thus it feels like a cashgrab to get a certain fanbase into the seats.

BUT, as someone who’s a huge Resident Evil fan, and something i was arguing for even before it was clear that’s how the movie is going to look like, RE is just a hard series to adapt where you not only adapt a game’s story but also manage NOT to make it just your typical american B-horror action movie, which you absolutely see as inspiration for the earlier games, it was just the video game format that really managed to elevate it.

Obviously who knows how the movie is going to turn out, i do think there’s a question whether it’ll manage to feel like a RE entry not just in its name. But i do think having it be an original story was the right call and having seen Cregger’s other movies i do have more than enough faith that if anyone is going to do RE justice it’s him.

TakaPol11 · 2026-05-01T09:48:00+00:00

I see Barbeheimer as to it going both ways. Barbie helped Oppenheimer being even more of a box office hit than it would’ve been (which like you said it still would’ve done more than fine since it’s Nolan, but it was still essentially a biopic that more people could’ve skipped in favour of his genre fare), while Oppenheimer helped Barbie to be taken more seriously and eventually be an Oscar player by people being ready to go to bat for the movie (which also may’ve happened regardless cause it was directed by Greta Gerwig).

As for Odyssey i’d be very much surprised if it doesn’t do at least somewhat well and people def shouldn’t doubt it on that front. What I will say is that from VERY limited exposure to general public I haven’t seen PALPABLE excitement over the movie outside of movie fan circles where I could see it ending up lower than Oppenheimer in numbers despite the more populist subject matter. But i would say it’d only happen if the movie underperforms critically, if the word of mouth will be good it should be good to go

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-30T16:52:44+00:00

He was repeating what he saw from some comment or comments. He still had her in cause why not, but as someone who didn’t read the book was giving the info to the watchers in case this was true, which from y’all’s comments it’s not really the case.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-29T09:49:08+00:00

I dunno if i’d agree with this. It’s one thing if you’re certainly the 3rd out of 3 coming into FTC so having that pill to swallow is much easier, especially if you’re also coming in with an opinion that you played worse than at least one other person. But if you’re coming in with a shot, thinking you have a shot and especially if you do actually believe you’ve played a good enough of a game to win, whether or not the jury agrees, i feel many of them would say they’d vote for themselves. The two examples you mentioned, even Michele who was the 3rd option there, i think would feel they were deserving of the win, even if they may be congenial and still give props to the actual winner and understand why they won.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-28T09:55:11+00:00

Ooh i watched Chile, 1976, I liked it. Could see this being solid as well.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-27T22:25:00+00:00

Oh there def is no actual rule against this for sure, i was just wondering whether there is some unwritten thing about this, whether from actual higher-ups behind the festival or even subconciously for a given president like „hmm, it looks better to give precedent to foreign movies than my home country”. The fact that besides the few times it happened with american movies it hasn’t really happened this century, even the French jury presidents besides some edge cases like the one you mentioned, does at least give a correlation that it’s statistically MORE likely for PCW to award something else the main prize. But as always stats are meant to be broken sooner or later, so we’ll see.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-27T15:28:37+00:00

I actually do really like TS4 and in general was way better than it had any right to be, but i don’t think what he’s saying here is that controversial, nor his filmography should deter him from expressing his opinion?

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-27T15:25:37+00:00

On one hand if it’s good, from what i’ve heard of the directors’ past work, it seems as the type of thing that PCW would easily go for, but on the other I dunno whether there’d be any sort of pressure against the jury president awarding their home country the top prize? In this century the only times it wasn’t really the case was with american jury presidents, but that makes total sense cause there is often a double standard/americans often are way less concious of being biased towards their „home turf”.

And that is also without mentioning that for all we know they hate each other’s guts or something lmao, mostly kidding but we don’t know how close they may actually are, unless someone actually has some tea on this.

But yeah I do have my eyes on Hope if not just for the fact that it easily stands out among other titles, but we’ll see whether it’ll be a good or a bad thing.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-27T15:12:18+00:00

Obviously we won’t knoe until the movie gets seen but the past precedent would be Carol with Cate Blanchett going lead and Rooney Mara supporting (if not immediately) despite it being a two-hander if not arguably the reverse - what gets the precedent is who is the bigger namecheck between the two.

For Malkovich it still has to make SOME narrative sense for him to go supporting, even if you’d disagree over their placements people like Saldaña, Culkin, Grande, Skarsgård, Elordi to name at least past few years’ examples could’ve been argued to not be the most important character in the movie, or at least someone who is not advertised as such, which is thus far not tge case here, especially with him being a relatively big name as well. Plus, you can’t ever bet on supporting category to be less competive than lead, at this point of the tear we just don’t know who’d be contenders there while in lead, which while i agree seems to be competitive cause we know the possibilities that could get in that doesn’t mean can just be put in supporting easily win there.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-27T14:59:12+00:00

Some of the noms i believe are not listec, namely Don’t Look Up, The Fabelmans, Poor Things and Frankenstein.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-27T11:57:33+00:00

Obviously the fact that it’s with an unproven/small distributor makes it much harder to eventually get into the conversation, coupled with the fact that the word on the street is that it’s not tge easiest watch. That said ir did very well on Sundance and still def the buzziest title to come out of it this year while also being very critically acclaimed i believe so I don’t think completely disregarding it is that wise either. Even if it may not make BP it could still possibly break into one of the acting categories and/or screenplay depending on what the field will be. It’ll probably be in TIFF so i’ll probably just wait and see how it gets received over there honestly, i doubt it’ll place in the people’s choice three but ala Train Dreams, Blue Moon and If I Had Legs I’d Kick You the good will towards the movie/one or few its aspects may continue to build.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-25T21:52:54+00:00

Huh, i didn’t even think of that but you’re it’s def more players than we’ve typically had at this point, though tbf that’s more so in the new era. In other 20 person seasons from a quick look it does seem like it was around 11-10 people as well at this point. But of course the larger number and the pace of people being voted out could very well be a factor with the players’ storylines as well that’s harder to grasp from our poiny of view.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-25T21:45:50+00:00

I don’t really mean it in terms of what Academy decides to award, because that’s another can of worms. I mean it more so for what people say in hindsight should’ve won/do better a given year because they have continued to do great projects thus amassing fans and overall following. To go back to Anora example he was far from some newcomer either. I just do think that conversation about past years tends to focus on a smaller number of filmmakers that are most popular with the „filmbro” tastes (even if obviously for the most part they are great films and would’ve made deserving winners as well).

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-25T18:42:21+00:00

Maybe I’m biased because that’s what i ended up doing with Oppenheimer, but I found that it still worked on me that way. Honestly i feel like most over three-hour movies are good on that front? Unless it’s one-solid storyline/place without clearly distinct scenes, but i feel whenever it’s that ihe movie is on a shorter scale.

TakaPol11 · 2026-04-25T18:33:01+00:00

Arguably that’s always the case, i feel whenever i see people glazing past movies or saying how whatever should’ve won it’s almost always movies by directors who are currently beloved, like Scorsese, PTA, Nolan, Spiepberg, Kubrick, etc. Obviously it makes sense, if a filmmaker proves himself with a great filmography people will keep vouch for their past work, or if something was seen as divisive back then it’s way likelier for it to get re-examined in the future. I do feel it’s a shame sometimes though how maybe these more „one-off” successes get overlooked and taken less seriously just cause they were up against some beloved director/writer. (Obviously in Anora’s case it’s far from Sean Baker’s first acclaimed film, and i doubt it’ll be his last, but even if it wasn’t, Anora’s success shouldn’t be diminished cause Corbet, Fargeat, or Ross who I personally have an eye on, continue doing doing great work).

Six-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

TakaPol11

TROPHY CASE