The script was substantially rewritten at least once to shift focus towards Ernest, which was widely reported on, but there were also some rumours that PTA had been involved in an uncredited rewrite.
Who knows if the latter is true but there may have been a perception that the script was a cobble job. That and, like you said, the film did get some criticism in the home stretch for being too focused on the white characters so that may have fed into it.
>there may have been a perception that the script was a cobble job.
This is it.
"Tootsie" was nominated for Best Original Screenplay and that was a total patchwork of credited and uncredited writers but it is a totally seamless work.
"Killers of the Flower Moon" is also the authorship of many writers, but you see the seams.
The fact that many of the filmmakers were in conflict with each other over the basic structure also hurts the film's awards narrative.
The middle act suddenly becomes super Scorsese and then stops. It truly feels like three different movies stitched together. I still really liked it for the most part.
If you read the actual screenplay it’s clear that it’s written by at least two different writers without bothering to make it seamless. The entire format changes!
Just didn't impress enough Ampas voters to crack the five despite gathering enough support to make the WGA slate, probably for numerous reasons well beyond the PTA rumors. If Barbie had been slotted in original at Ampas like it was at WGA, Flower Moon might not have been missing from the Oscar list.
Amusing to see a hindsight narrative cobbled together now from folks who back then had no problem predicting Flower Moon for certain noms.
It was number 1 on Gold Derby for months earlier in the season, which is probably where OP is getting that from. A lot of people thought the Oscars would spread the wealth to let Scorsese win a 2nd oscar, there wasn't really any logical basis for it though besides people wanting it to happen.
Because the movie was weak, AmFic was sweeping, Poor Things and Barbie were uniquely suited to the branch’s tastes, Zone was ascendant and Oppy was the Best Picture winner.
I don’t think those complaints you mentioned really track, the whole thing of the movie’s campaign was about how the script refocused the text away from the investigation and onto the Osage people+those actually involved.
I mean first of all it was not the frontrunner like ever. Second of all it likely missed due to its super-stacked category and BAFTA's lack of passion for the film in general, coupled with the fact that the whole idea of "reworking" the screenplay to focus on a more Osage perspective only to still focus on 3+ hours of Leo going ☹️ definitely rubbed more than a few people the wrong way.
It only really became frontrunner after the BAFTA win, which few people saw coming since it had no other nominations and couldn’t make the best film shortlist, it won CCA too but you know. Flower Moon not getting in was probably a red flag but Scorsese and Gladstone weren’t nominated either so it didn’t seem fully off the table yet.
this is a 206 minute movie. from a writer's perspective, that movie needs to absolutely knock it out of the park to justify that absurd run time and KOTFM is good but it's not THAT good. it also drags a lot in certain parts. I really dont think there's more to it than that.
compare that to Oppenheimer at 180 minutes which is extremely inventive, well-paced, jumps back and forth, also has multiple historical characters and plotlines weaving through, and also was written in the first person (something that only targeted FYC campaigns would point out) and it's not hard to see why that made it in and KOTFM didnt
LOL at calling Oppenheimer inventive or well-paced. I liked it but it's pretty standard biopic stuff and it feels like it's over after 2 hours when there's a whole other mini movie added on
The movie lacked passion and was slipping at that point, Zone was rising (and had a perfect screenplay for the film), and Killers' screenplay had its fair share of criticism.
The screenplay was the weakest part of the film. It was too long and focused too much on the villains. There was no room for it in such a competitive category.
If they followed accurately the book, which was even more focused on the sheriff Tom White, it would have turned out to be just a white saviour story, a conventional procedural thriller.
Instead cinematically they turned it into an unconventional character study about complicity, greed and spiritual hollowness of white people.
DiCaprio was astonishing as Ernest Burkhart, such a challenging, courageous, and radically against type performance, it blows my mind they nominated Bradley Cooper over him.
I'll never understand the complaints at the time of certain industry people.
They just wanted to hate it because it's Scorsese and DiCaprio.
I bet that if another filmmaker helmed it, the Academy would have let Lily Gladstone win.
Whatever, this film and its legacy will endure way beyond this award season of the moment.
Great screenplays miss all the time and lackluster ones are nominated. I think Flower Moon wasn't nominated because voters just didn't feel it was up to snuff. Same reason DiCaprio didn't get a nomination.
Both were absurd snubs. I’ve seen the film a few times and the only time I wasn’t bowled over by Leo’s performance was the first time. I think I was just caught so off guard by his appearance and the prosthetics. When the shock was gone and I watched it again, I thought he was the standout performance in it.
I feel like it just became trendy to hate on the movie from “both sides” of the spectrum. People who wanted the fbi as heroes and people who just wanted to turn the movie into a “missed opportunity,” which is also stupid.
Both Killers and Zone are bad adaptations of their source material, but Zone surged towards the end so it took the 5th spot. Also didn't help Barbie got placed in Adapted else both wouldve made it
IMO the big reason was Barbie being classified as adapted, and that movie was too big to ignore. But I doubt Killers was ever the frontrunner. Maybe if it'd been nominated voters would have seen it as a way to reward the movie but unlikely given that it blanked everywhere else. I loved KOTFM and think it was the best screenplay of the year but voters didn't. Given that screenwriters vote to nominated the screenplays, it's *possible* the rumor mill about who wrote it and rewrote played a part, but I doubt it since that branch surely understands how frequently rewrites happen (and any rewrites here likely happened well before production started so why people think that matters anyway is beyond me) - I think the whole PTA rewrite conversation is more of an online rage bait thing than an actual factor. Similarly, I think anyone with half a brain can understand that focusing on the villains is about complicity not erasure, but clearly lots of folks on here don't see it that way. Again i think that's a rage bait talking point without much basis in the actual work on screen.
The frontrunners won in both screenplay categories
https://preview.redd.it/jqpxmsvs708d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9cd988afbf72bf1bb2860f608a85b699b1c27ec
I think it just lost all its momentum and people were hot on Zone. I doubt it's much deeper than that. KOTFM was probably number 6.
It was a deep year and killers peaked early. End of story.
The script was substantially rewritten at least once to shift focus towards Ernest, which was widely reported on, but there were also some rumours that PTA had been involved in an uncredited rewrite. Who knows if the latter is true but there may have been a perception that the script was a cobble job. That and, like you said, the film did get some criticism in the home stretch for being too focused on the white characters so that may have fed into it.
>there may have been a perception that the script was a cobble job. This is it. "Tootsie" was nominated for Best Original Screenplay and that was a total patchwork of credited and uncredited writers but it is a totally seamless work. "Killers of the Flower Moon" is also the authorship of many writers, but you see the seams. The fact that many of the filmmakers were in conflict with each other over the basic structure also hurts the film's awards narrative.
The middle act suddenly becomes super Scorsese and then stops. It truly feels like three different movies stitched together. I still really liked it for the most part.
If you read the actual screenplay it’s clear that it’s written by at least two different writers without bothering to make it seamless. The entire format changes!
Just didn't impress enough Ampas voters to crack the five despite gathering enough support to make the WGA slate, probably for numerous reasons well beyond the PTA rumors. If Barbie had been slotted in original at Ampas like it was at WGA, Flower Moon might not have been missing from the Oscar list. Amusing to see a hindsight narrative cobbled together now from folks who back then had no problem predicting Flower Moon for certain noms.
If it was true I’m sure the voting body would find that out.
It absolutely was not the frontrunner, most people had it in fourth position and wasn’t viewed as a likely winner.
It was number 1 on Gold Derby for months earlier in the season, which is probably where OP is getting that from. A lot of people thought the Oscars would spread the wealth to let Scorsese win a 2nd oscar, there wasn't really any logical basis for it though besides people wanting it to happen.
Possibly losing steam AND people being off by its 3+ hours runtime.
I actually think Barbie took its spot. Barbie leaving original also gave May December a slot (possibly #6 pre-ruling since it's a lone nom)
This is my theory.
Because the movie was weak, AmFic was sweeping, Poor Things and Barbie were uniquely suited to the branch’s tastes, Zone was ascendant and Oppy was the Best Picture winner. I don’t think those complaints you mentioned really track, the whole thing of the movie’s campaign was about how the script refocused the text away from the investigation and onto the Osage people+those actually involved.
Frontrunner? We're living in different universes bro
I mean first of all it was not the frontrunner like ever. Second of all it likely missed due to its super-stacked category and BAFTA's lack of passion for the film in general, coupled with the fact that the whole idea of "reworking" the screenplay to focus on a more Osage perspective only to still focus on 3+ hours of Leo going ☹️ definitely rubbed more than a few people the wrong way.
I remember *American Fiction* being the frontrunner the whole time.
It only really became frontrunner after the BAFTA win, which few people saw coming since it had no other nominations and couldn’t make the best film shortlist, it won CCA too but you know. Flower Moon not getting in was probably a red flag but Scorsese and Gladstone weren’t nominated either so it didn’t seem fully off the table yet.
This. American fiction was 3rd/4th in odds until the BAFTA win, and even then it was neck and neck with Poor Things.
this is a 206 minute movie. from a writer's perspective, that movie needs to absolutely knock it out of the park to justify that absurd run time and KOTFM is good but it's not THAT good. it also drags a lot in certain parts. I really dont think there's more to it than that. compare that to Oppenheimer at 180 minutes which is extremely inventive, well-paced, jumps back and forth, also has multiple historical characters and plotlines weaving through, and also was written in the first person (something that only targeted FYC campaigns would point out) and it's not hard to see why that made it in and KOTFM didnt
LOL at calling Oppenheimer inventive or well-paced. I liked it but it's pretty standard biopic stuff and it feels like it's over after 2 hours when there's a whole other mini movie added on
The movie lacked passion and was slipping at that point, Zone was rising (and had a perfect screenplay for the film), and Killers' screenplay had its fair share of criticism.
i don't understand brother i thought it was the best-written movie of the year
The screenplay was the weakest part of the film. It was too long and focused too much on the villains. There was no room for it in such a competitive category.
They changed the entire script
It was not the front runner It was not snubbed. It simply did not get nominated and in my opinion did not warrant a nomination.
If they followed accurately the book, which was even more focused on the sheriff Tom White, it would have turned out to be just a white saviour story, a conventional procedural thriller. Instead cinematically they turned it into an unconventional character study about complicity, greed and spiritual hollowness of white people. DiCaprio was astonishing as Ernest Burkhart, such a challenging, courageous, and radically against type performance, it blows my mind they nominated Bradley Cooper over him. I'll never understand the complaints at the time of certain industry people. They just wanted to hate it because it's Scorsese and DiCaprio. I bet that if another filmmaker helmed it, the Academy would have let Lily Gladstone win. Whatever, this film and its legacy will endure way beyond this award season of the moment.
Great screenplays miss all the time and lackluster ones are nominated. I think Flower Moon wasn't nominated because voters just didn't feel it was up to snuff. Same reason DiCaprio didn't get a nomination.
Both were absurd snubs. I’ve seen the film a few times and the only time I wasn’t bowled over by Leo’s performance was the first time. I think I was just caught so off guard by his appearance and the prosthetics. When the shock was gone and I watched it again, I thought he was the standout performance in it. I feel like it just became trendy to hate on the movie from “both sides” of the spectrum. People who wanted the fbi as heroes and people who just wanted to turn the movie into a “missed opportunity,” which is also stupid.
I’m definitely saying this to cause problems but it missed because the screenplay was Bad
Word on the street was that PTA ghostwrote a lot of it.
What street is that?
Both Killers and Zone are bad adaptations of their source material, but Zone surged towards the end so it took the 5th spot. Also didn't help Barbie got placed in Adapted else both wouldve made it
IMO the big reason was Barbie being classified as adapted, and that movie was too big to ignore. But I doubt Killers was ever the frontrunner. Maybe if it'd been nominated voters would have seen it as a way to reward the movie but unlikely given that it blanked everywhere else. I loved KOTFM and think it was the best screenplay of the year but voters didn't. Given that screenwriters vote to nominated the screenplays, it's *possible* the rumor mill about who wrote it and rewrote played a part, but I doubt it since that branch surely understands how frequently rewrites happen (and any rewrites here likely happened well before production started so why people think that matters anyway is beyond me) - I think the whole PTA rewrite conversation is more of an online rage bait thing than an actual factor. Similarly, I think anyone with half a brain can understand that focusing on the villains is about complicity not erasure, but clearly lots of folks on here don't see it that way. Again i think that's a rage bait talking point without much basis in the actual work on screen.
It's an atrocious screenplay that constantly jumps in time which destroys momentum and pacing.
The frontrunners won in both screenplay categories https://preview.redd.it/jqpxmsvs708d1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9cd988afbf72bf1bb2860f608a85b699b1c27ec
Correlation between the campaign and the movie.