The last 4 films to win Best Picture have all been Rated R, which could be the longest streak in Oscar history (I only looked back till 1960 though).

Crash
The Departed
No Country for Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire

Just thought it was interesting to point out.

considering R didn't come into effect until 1968, I'd stay that's the longest streak ever.

Haha, that's funny, I thought JUST the same thing yesterday!


Also, I noticed that in recent years, each year the majority of the nominees was rated R.

2008 - 4/5 nominees rated R
2007 - 4/5 nominees rated R
2006 - 4/5 nominees rated R
2005 - 4/5 nominees rated R

Might partially explain the grosses going down.

I'm trying to think of 4 R rated films that would be nominated this year...

errrrr

Shutter Island
Cheri
Untitled Nelson Mandela Project (Not sure this would even be R)
Broken Embraces?

And I wouldn't imagine any of those are winning.

STREAK ENDS!

I think Mandela would be R. Clint doesn't normally fuck around.

Million Dollar Baby was P-13, no?

You're a quick one!

indeed it was.

Maybe they'll do a brutal flashback to Mandela's youth to warrant an R rating and to give it some prestige. Otherwise, it's just a football right?

Eh...Amelia can easily get an R-rating as well if there's some language or titties. Earheart was a polyamori afterall.

I dunno...what about The Lovely Bones? It includes a brutal rape and murder of a young girl, no?

The Informant is R.
A Serious Man will most likely be R

The Lovely Bones can't be rated PG-13. Jackson could do it with Kong and LOTR, but this isn't even the same sport...not just rape and murder, but the guy's a serial killer, for god's sake. And the emotional intensity, plus one of the big scenes involves her fucking somebody through proxy...

The Lovely Bones and Shutter Island can be great bets for an R-rating.

Chicago was PG-13, so I can see Marshall and the study try to pull the same with Nine, though I wouldn't hold my breath.

The Human Factor is a toss-up.

I think 2009 can easily manage 3/5 R-rated nominees.

How many high-profile R-rated movies come our way anyway?

Forgot about Lovely Bones. I don't think the other two are likely for noms.

I think the easier question is..what will be PG-13 and have a good shot at a nom? Other than Avatar and Nine?

Avatar does not have a good shot at a nomination. If it beats Titanic and has ecstatic reviews, maybe, but after TDK, I'd actually say the Academy has gotten more conservative in the last several years. If you call LOTR a fluke (because they were getting beat over the head with it three years in a row), they've very much so shunned films of this ilk ever since the mid-80s or thereabouts. The Fugitive is really the closest to compare.

Mandela can easily be PG-13.

I think that's what everyone is shooting for.

I love Cameron, but I doubt that he's Kubrick and can spend 12 years between finished products.

It can do it, but more likely it'll be like King Kong (or The Fountain with infinitely better marketing) and make $250 or 300 million. You just can't predict a zeitgeist out of a non-franchise film. I tried that already this decade...

Arghhh, you changed your post.

Somebody needs to take the edit button away from me.

I would be happy with a King Kong, box office and reception wise.

But I'll also be happy with out of this world box office and the entire Hollywood establishment rolling over for Avatar.

The Dark Knight couldn't do it.

Nolan isn't Cameron.

Titanic was the only Cameron film non-techies fell for. Jamie Lee Curtis couldn't even get nominated for True Lies after a Golden Globe win and SAG nomination (Possible category confusion could have hurt, but she was probably Supporting).

Also, there are still always potential surprise indies with R ratings that can get nominated (Capote, Crash, Little Miss Sunshine).

Cheri falls under that, no?

Except it's not much of a surprise now that we're expecting it.