They announced this last night. Not that we really need the help.
Makeup & Hairstyling is increasingly becoming one of those frustrating categories — the kind that begs for a voting overhaul, like Original Song a few years back.
Anyway, Nocturnal Animals won for Contemporary Makeup, Suicide Squad won for Period and/or Character Makeup, La La Land won for Contemporary Hairstyling, Hail, Caesar! won for Period and/or Character Hairstyling. Star Trek Beyond won for Special Makeup Effects.
So basically the two nominees anyone thinks has any shot to win both won an award. So… great?
– – – – – – – – – –
Every year before the Oscars I break down each of the 24 categories. I do this to familiarize everyone with the category, how it typically goes, voting-wise, historically and also as a precursor to my picks article, allowing me to get most of the heavy lifting out of the way beforehand.
What I do is go over each category’s history, give you all the previous winners and nominees, then list the current year’s nominees. And then I’ll go over how each of the guilds (if there is a corresponding guild) have voted, how that corresponds to the Oscars (some guilds mean a lot to how a category will play out. Others mean nothing). It’s basically everything you need to know in order to make an informed decision when you make your picks on Oscar night. And then I also rank the nominees at the end in terms of where I see them in terms of their likelihood to win. So you know what the general favorites are.
Today is Best Makeup & Hairstyling. A category we usually don’t really care about which is especially the case this year. (more…)
The Makeup and Hairstylists Guild announced their nominations today.
However, because the Makeup & Hairstyling Oscar category is so bizarre in their voting methods, we really don’t have a whole lot to talk about.
Here are your nominees: (more…)
They announced the Best Makeup & Hairstyling Shortlist today.
This is the one shortlist I don’t question. I don’t know how they figure it out, and I don’t really care what they left off, because you could spend days trying to figure out the methodology. All I know is — they give me seven, so I work with those seven. The rest is a fool’s errand.
Here are your shortlisted films for Best Makeup & Hairstyling: (more…)
So the Oscars were last night. A lot to talk about.
This is where we officially close the book on 2015 and move into 2016. I’ll try to give everything its due, but there was a point about an hour into the ceremony where I was just kind of over it and wanted to move on.
Overall it was a strange year. They really spread the wealth around. Mad Max won six, I think, and then The Revenant won 3 and Spotlight won 2 and then everything else only won 1. Crazy.
A lot of major stats fell and a lot of crazy shit happened. So let’s get into it: (more…)
My friend introduced me to this last year. I had no idea people did it, and I honestly think it’s the best way to pick the Oscars. Here’s how it works:
You take every category and rank all of the nominees in terms of order you think they’re going to win. If your #1 choice wins, you get 1 point. If #2 wins, you get to. Etc. And in the end, you tally your score up. And the lowest score (24 being the lowest) wins. It’s very simple, and the only time it gets confusing is if a tie happens, which is pretty rare in the history of the Academy (even though one did happen in 2012).
I prefer it because it’s based more on diagnosing the category than simply picking a winner. And diagnosing categories is my specialty.
Here’s my scorecard for this year’s Oscars: (more…)
My giant ballot article went up a few hours ago. This is the abridged version of that, for easy reference during the ceremony.
Here’s everything you should be taking, and what I’m taking. Very succinct, with cliff notes versions of all the categories.
And in a bit, I’m gonna post my scorecard for how I’m gonna rank myself on that. (Note: The rankings here may be slightly different from the ones I’m picking on the Scorecard.)
Here are the quick picks for the 88th Academy Awards: (more…)