You know what to do.

First questions:

Steve Carell - lead of supporting in Foxcatcher?

Andy Serkis - lead or supporting in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?

Andy Serkis is a clear lead

Supporting.



Supporting.

Carell and Tatum are leads in Foxcatcher. Ruffalo is supporting.

I lean toward supporting for Serkis in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but I am honestly not sure.

How is Serkis supporting when the film is about Caesar?

Because, uh...Jason Clarke is a real boy.

Jaws is about a shark, but Roy Scheider was the lead.

Planet of the Apes (1968) was about apes too, but Heston was the lead. Jason Clarke is the lead in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes because he is the human. He is the one that leads us (the audience) through the picture, not Caesar. The ape pops up when we need him to, but Clarke is the character's story that we are being shown. And more proof that Serkis is supporting: he won a Supporting Actor Saturn Award in 2012 for playing Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes and that film was also "about Caesar" (much more than Dawn is). He was also nominated for an EDA Award as Supporting Actor. And a Critics Choice Award. And an HFCS Award. The San Diego Film Critics Society also nominated him as Best Supporting Actor. And the Satellite Awards. Oh, and the Washington DC Film Critics Awards. All as Supporting Actor. His performance is supporting because he's half acting, half visual effect. It's not a complete performance. It's aided. If he turned into an ape all by himself, then it'd be a full lead performance, but since he cannot and will never be able to do that; he supports the lead cast.

Serkis is the lead.

I wonder then, do we consider Jason Clarke lead or supporting in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?

Ew, he was awful. Who cares?

I may just be going into weeds considering the low probability of these actors being nominated, but I have pondered them:

Anne Hathaway in Interstellar: lead or supporting?
Joaquin Phoenix in The Immigrant: lead or supporting?
Tye Sheridan in Joe: lead or supporting?
Christoph Waltz in Big Eyes: lead or supporting?

I'd say Anne is a lead in Interstellar, with Chastain as supporting.

Anne Hathaway is the lead actress in Interstellar, and Tye Sheridan, although it's close, is the supporting actor in Joe. He starts off as the central character, but then it shifts to Cage and stays with him until the end, and the film is called Cage's character name, so..

The breakthrough category is always a bit strange. For me, it raises this question of, "How established can a person be and still break through?" To me, the obvious choices this year are Stacy Martin, Carrie Coon, and Jack O'Connell.

I suspect it may go to Chris Pratt, though, for breaking through from well-known television actor (Everwood, Parks and Recreation) and comic side player (Delivery Man, The Five-Year Engagement, Her) to action hero.

Jamie Foxx was nominated as Best Supporting Actor for Collateral, but that doesn't prove anything because everyone know that he is co-lead. Nothing speaks against a film having more than one lead. Besides, I felt Caesar's story was even more interesting and more prominent in the second film than in the first. But I will let the discussion continue.

I mean, as lead he has zero chances of getting nominated, as supporting maybe...

I didn't even think of Pratt until you mentioned him. But I don't classify 'breakthrough' like that. I feel they have to be pretty much unknown in 2013 and then make a name for themselves in 2014 to be classified. At least that's how I will do it. I only heard of Martin and O'Connell this year. I'm having trouble thinking of more, though.

Watch Whiplash. Damien Chazelle deserves a nom for it as breakthrough director.

Did we nominate JLaw for Breakthrough after the first Hunger Games? I can't remember. Slightly similar scenario to Pratt.

In the end, that category is just up to the voters. It does not require clarification. You wanna nominate Tom Cruise for Edge of Tomorrow, go ahead.

Whiplash screenplay: adapted or original?

http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/osc ... by-academy

I tend toward original despite the Academy's decision. I just cannot see a screenplay as ADAPTED because one scene was shot and edited beforehand as a proof of concept for financiers.

Of course, the original/adapted distinction is often hard to pinpoint. A film such as Big Hero 6 is hardly "adapted" in as direct a way as, say, Gone Girl or The Fault in Our Stars.

Well someone has to be the lead and someone has to be the supporting actor, and Jamie Foxx doesn't stand a chance against Tom Cruise, therefore he was supporting.

No, man. A film can have two leads. See Amadeus for instance.

Original. Academy shows itself to be ridiculous again.

Cruise was the star name. It wouldn't have happened if Cruise didn't sign on to make it, therefore he was leading the production. Foxx was supporting the production. It's as clear as day, man.

There also doesn't necessarily need to be a lead actress. For me, Interstellar has a lead actor and two supporting actresses.