comment #1

BNick says ...

Right on, Jeff. Plus, where's the screenplay? Much if not most of the movie was actually a documentary, where real people are speaking for themselves, unscripted and off-the-cuff. I'm not bashing Borat, but I am questioning its placement in this category.

Casino Royale comes immediately to mind as a more deserving candidate, but I'm sure there are others.

comment #2

Bart Smith says ...

If the flimsiness is in regards to categorization, you don't have a case. This falls under the AMPAS guidelines and is no different than BEFORE SUNSET falling under the Adapted Screenplay category for being a sequel to BEFORE SUNRISE.

comment #3

Dixon Steele says ...

OK, but, as I posted elsewhere, why is LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, which according to its credits, is based on the book "Letters from Commander in Chief", in the Original category?

comment #4

alynch says ...

LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA's nomination for original screenplay is (I'm just guessing here) most likely similar to what happened with Syrianna last year. Meaning that the film was so loosely based on the book, maybe just taking a few ideas from it, that it doesn't qualify as an adaptation. I've never read the book, but I remember hearing that the book only covers the time that General Kuribayashi was visiting America, and it doesn't cover Iwo Jima in any way.

comment #5

corey3rd says ...

the big problem with the screenplay voting is that nobody is voting on an actual script. Borat's folks didn't have to send the voters a copy of the shooting script. Was there really a screenplay or merely a series of "reality" notes about what stunts to pull where and maybe a couple scribbles for the tie-in scenes.

comment #6

Mickey says ...

Dixon: I also posted this elsewhere, but just in case you missed it: The book is actually "Picture Letters from Commander in Chief," which I'm guessing (I'm not sure about this) is just a reprinting of the actual letters (maybe with some more biographical info?).

If this is the case, then the screenplay is based on real-life events and not on another artistic representation. That wouldn't warrant inclusion in the "adapted" category. Could also be that it strayed, but this is my best guess.

comment #7

Bart Smith says ...

Supposedly, there was a 60-page screenplay that they worked off of.

comment #8

Mark says ...

similar concepts and attitudes? more like identical jokes and setups.

comment #9

JD says ...

This is another triumph for HBO's "It's not TV, it's HBO" mantra. If a fairly exact replica of an HBO show can get an Oscar nomination, they've really got a case. The funny thing is that Da Ali G was one of the least cinematic shows they've ever produced.

comment #10

JD says ...

Sorry, that should be Da Ali G SHOW.

comment #11

Josh Massey says ...

The nomination for Borat is more absurd than Kenneth Branagh's for his word-for-word adaptation of Hamlet.

comment #12

Colin says ...

Josh, I agree that Borat did not deserve a nomination for screenplay. In the adapted category, I would have much preferred either of the 2 magician movies or Thank You For Smoking.

comment #13

Chris Molanphy says ...

The biggest winners coming out of the 'Borat' nomination: the reality-TV writers looking to get recognized by the TV studios and get unionized. They now have a massive data point in their favor – no less than the Motion Picture Academy thinks what they do for a living amounts to writing. I say, good for them.

comment #14

Dixon Steele says ...

Personally, I thought THE ILLUSIONIST was one of the year's best (superior to the still-good PRESTIGE), and Dick Pope's brilliant cinematography certainly deserved a nod.

I guess the fact that it was "promoted" by the Yari Film Group sealed that fate.

comment #15

Colin says ...

Dixon, it's a really tough call for me between The Illusionist and The Prestige. Having seen The Illusionist again, I have it slightly ahead of Nolan's film because I found a lot in it that I missed the first time around. Of course, I know that there's plenty in The Prestige that I missed the first time around as well, so I'll have to see it again to make a final decision.

comment #16

ArchiveGuy says ...

Bart Smith said: "If the flimsiness is in regards to categorization, you don't have a case. This falls under the AMPAS guidelines and is no different than BEFORE SUNSET falling under the Adapted Screenplay category for being a sequel to BEFORE SUNRISE"

But the Academy has been inconsistent on this matter, since it gave "Barbarian Invasions" (a sequel) an Original Screenplay nomination.

comment #17

Mr. Peel says ...

I've always been confused about this. Godfather II won for adapted screenplay, but what category was Godfather III (no source material, no nomination) eligible for? Would Casino Royale be an adaptation but Die Another Day would be an original? I know these are films that weren't ever going to be nominated but someday it could be an issue.

comment #18

Nick Rogers says ...

I loved "Children of Men," but that screenplay nomination seems like a flimsy call, too. Its biggest strength was its visual conviction, not necessarily its script. It seems like kind of a middle finger to the movie, if you ask me - the sort of courtesy nomination it has no chance of winning.

comment #19

Edward Havens says ...

There have been inconsistencies in the way the Academy handles "original" and "adapted" screenplays, and part of it comes from their simplifying the titles of the awards. It used to be (and I believe it still is, semi-officially) "Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published" and "Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen." As Borat's character and many catchphrases were created on Da Ali G Show, it properly got nominated in the Adapted category.

comment #20

Rob says ...

"Best Screenplay" is just code for "Movies Many of Us Really Liked But Were Too Edgy to Nominate for Best Picture" anyway.