> > Good point. It does have a very good chance. But how come I haven't heard a word of Oscar-related buzz about it?
>
> Most likely because it was released earlier this year.

That's why the Academy wouldn't nominate it in the first place -- justly or not -- but I was asking Trip why he thinks it *would* get Oscar nominations. If it were a strong contender, it would be getting Oscar-related buzz, regardless of all other factors. It could still slip in as a dark horse -- certainly buzzless movies have been nominated before -- but I don't know what grounds one uses to bet on it as anything but a long shot.

> No mention of Signs from anyone? Was that movie left off of everyone's list because (a) Stephen (and several others) hated hated hated the ending and

Stephen gets way too much profile in his opinion of Signs. Signs was brilliant, IMHO largely *because* of the ending. Stephen is a putz.

> (b) it basically is a science fiction movie and the Academy hates science fiction movies almost as much as they hate comedies?

That's most of it. Summer, science fiction, and the shadow of The Sixth Sense sink its chances.

I disagree with Stephen's thought that the spiritual side of the movie plays a role. It's fashionable to be spiritual as long as you aren't overtly Christian. Although the main character is an Episcopalian (itself one of the least controversial denominations), the moral center of the movie is open-ended, open-minded, and not particularly tied to any specific faith. Contrast this with Chariots of Fire, which won the Best Picture Oscar in a competitive year. Chariots is much more overtly religious, bordering on evangelistic.

But Chariots didn't have aliens in it.