Academy Awards 2012: What movies are in contention for the 2012 Oscars? What should I see if I want to see everything that is likely to get nominated?

Something to keep in mind while considering possible Best Picture nominations is, there is a new rule this year. Every film that gets enough votes will be nominated, and there is no specific limit on how many films can be nominated. So, if only four films get enough votes, then only four will be nominated. If five or ten get enough votes, those will all be nominated. And if hypothetically twelve get enough votes, that's how many nominees we'll have.

Which means voters in the Academy will be aware that their votes can be used not only to determine nominees, but also to determine the number of nominees as well. Whether that ends up being a factor in their decisions or not, we can't know until we see the nominations. But I'll bet it makes a difference.

For now, I'll just list the films I think are most likely to get Best Picture nominations. I'll come back from time to time and update this answer to include other categories and contenders.

The films I think are most likely contenders for Best Picture as of right now:

• The Tree of Life -- I think this one is a "sure thing" already. Despite some controversy, this is one of two films that I think are, at this point in time, the front-runners in the Oscar race for Best Picture.
• Midnight in Paris -- Another likely "sure thing" in my opinion, and the film I think is currently tied for front-runner status.
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 -- This will, I'm guessing, be nominated as a sort of representative nomination for the entire franchise, as well as because of how big and successful and high-quality an undertaking the film (and the entire series) were. I'd call this one "probably very likely" for a nomination.
• The Help -- I'm betting this will be one of the "feel-good" nominated films that everyone kind of loved and wanted to see turn out as a success. So I think this is "strong but not certain" for a nomination. I'm feeling this might be somewhat like The Blind Side and surprise a lot of people who might think it's not big enough or serious enough to compete against some other contenders.
• The Debt -- A hard-edged political thriller with a great cast, based on a true and highly compelling story, I think this is another film "strong but not certain" for a nomination.
• Contagion -- The sheer number of big names involved with this film, strong performances (Matt Damon is particularly excellent, as is Jude Law), it's heightened realism, and the themes/messaging are all working in this film's favor. The good reception likewise helps its chances. I'd say this one is about on par with The Debt in terms of odds, making it "strong but not certain" to earn a nomination.
• Beginners -- A small indie film with magnificent performances and great storytelling, this is one I'd call "a very good contender," but it's hard to be sure about smaller films like this. I'll say it's probably going to get some acting nominations, almost certainly.
• Jane Eyre -- Well received and with lots of "markers" going for it (period piece, famous story, exciting modern angle) and director Fukanaga made one of the best-but-overlooked films of 2008 (Sin Nombre, ignored by the Oscars). The quality, original new take, and strong positive reception make this another "very good contender," but with Judi Dench as the only big-name mainstream performer (in a supporting role), the film might lack enough established names to overcome other star-studded features.
• The Whistleblower -- All of the ingredients for a nomination are here.  An engrossing true story, revelations of political and military misdeeds, a war-torn society and people being horribly abused and exploited within it, direct outing of a real corporation's employees (DynCorps Int.) in the selling of children as sex-slaves and the subsequent cover-up of the events. A tragic tale, and the story of a woman who refused to be silenced and blew the whistle on the entire thing. Worst of all is the revelation that the U.N. Human Rights Commission knew all about what was going on. Here, then, is a film with a story that should and could enrage the public, with outstanding performances, containing true modern social and political relevance to an extent you don't often see. But that could work against it as well, if it's a story full of facts too few people want to face, and it's definitely a hard truth to witness. So what should be a strong contender is probably a "good contender" instead.

Films I think might be dark horse candidates:

• Bridesmaids -- This is a film that I personally want to rank on the above list, as "likely" simply because I loved it and hope it gets a well-deserved nomination. But comedies don't traditionally do well in the nominations for Best Picture. I'm hoping it will get some very well-deserved nods for acting categories, and if it fails in those categories then I'd officially call that a "snub," because the performances here are some of the best of the year.
• Rise of the Planet of the Apes -- The power of the acting and storytelling, the themes, and it's surprising degree of success (almost $400 million and counting at the global box office) make it hard to ignore this film as a possible unexpected nominee. But I'd caution against counting it out, because if it's popular enough with the Producers Guild and Acting Guild, it could slip by other high-profile films and take a spot at the table.
• Super 8 -- Possibly the most likely dark horse candidate to rise to the higher list of more likely contenders, this film has a lot going for it, including the big names attached and the sheer fun and how well it transported many adult audiences back to their childhood. But the sci-fi element and youthful lead actors probably work against it's chances, without some mega-success and bigger buzz to elevate it above the higher profile of Harry Potter or Rise of the Planet of the Apes.
• Cave of Forgotten Dreams -- The longest long shot on this list, since documentaries are almost never, ever nominated for the "big prize." But Herzog is hard to discount, and this film is a marvel. If the Academy wants to appear relevant in terms of the 3D debate, this film might get a boost in odds and be a big surprise contender. Most likely, it will end up in the Best Documentary category, though.

Films that I suspect will end up being possible or probable contenders for an Oscar nod:

• Young Adult -- The advance buzz, writing/directing/acting talents involved, and past Oscar history make this seem like a very safe bet as a "strong contender," but it's hard to know without more information concerning the story at this point.
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo -- I'll go ahead and say that sight-unseen, this is probably going be a "sure thing" nominee. The high profile story, advance buzz, top talent involved, and the shining star of Fincher at this point in his career all made this film a presumed Oscar contender even before the first teaser trailer blew the minds of viewers. It appears that Fincher might be determined to make up for his failure to garner the top awards with The Social Network. I'd say he's probably going to get a chance to at least try.
• J. Edgar -- A biopic directed by Eastwood, with DiCaprio in a compelling lead role surrounded by great supporting performers, and lots of controversy. That sounds like a winning combination for not just a good film, but for a good shot at an Oscar bid. After his exceptional biographical performance in the film The Aviator (itself a spectacular film) failed to win him an Oscar (which I think he deserved that year), DiCaprio might make this his year in the portrayal of J. Edgar Hoover, and if anyone should be granted instant presumptive Oscar-worthiness it's probably Eastwood (in the previous 8 years, he had three films nominated for Best Picture, one of them winning; and of course he previously had another film win as well).
• The Descendants -- A George Clooney film about a widower and his children coming together to cope with their grief and discover the truth about the woman they've lost. A small, simple story, and thus the sort of dramatic emotional exploration that could turn a little film into a big contender -- especially with Clooney's name attached. This is one of two Clooney films that could vie for nominations, the other being...
• Ides of March -- Here, Clooney delivers a political drama about the bitterness and dirtiness of modern national political campaigns, making a relevant film just in time for the actual national election year to kick off. I've not heard enough about this film to render a real verdict as to its chances overall, but just the nature of the film and the talent involved -- Ryan Gosling is the star, with Clooney costarring -- makes me think it's got to at least be on the "possible" list for now, when looking toward future potential contenders.

I've not included any foreign films on these lists, because foreign language films rarely get nominated for Best Picture. They are typically relegated to the "Best Foreign Language Film" category. However, there are a few foreign language films that might be potential contenders, however doubtful their nomination really probably is. I'll add them later, perhaps, if I think it seems likely that they at least have some slim chance of garnering a nomination.

EDIT:  Other users' have mentioned a few films that I think are worth talking about in some more detail as well. I'd forgotten about two of them, left a third one off because I was torn and felt my list was already overly long, and just wasn't aware of a third one. Rather than add them into my own list, which would feel a bit unfair, I'm just adding this edit to note that the users who mentioned these are absolutely right, and here is how I'd have ranked them within my list:

The Iron Lady -- "Might be likely, probably strong." I think this will probably end up among the strongest contenders. It's a period piece about a strong female leader portrayed by Meryl Streep, and the advance buzz gives an impression that the politics of the film mixed with such a strong lead performer could mean it has strong appeal to the SAG, the largest voting bloc at the AA (actors, so the conventional wisdom goes, tend to support films that are strong actor-vehicles). On the other hand, the director and producer are not "big names" and the film could be seen as holding back from a harder political assessment (according to some of the buzz), so if it's a film with a great lead performance but otherwise feeling a lack of relevance to modern sentiment and issues, and there's not more to nominate besides the lead roles, it might not get a nod after all. In addition, with The King's Speech having just won last year, there's reason to think the AA won't give back-to-back nominations to films about historical British leaders. So that's another possible thing working against it. I have no doubt that Streep will get an Oscar nodd, however.

Moneyball -- [Note:  Please see my EDIT at the end of this post for correction, David Fincher didn't direct this film, and thanks Ian Edwards for the heads-up on Quora policy preferences!]  "Strong." Fincher's already been nominated twice in the previous three years (2008 and 2010), and this would make back-to-back nominations. So it's hard to know whether Fincher will be seen as having gotten plenty of attention already and needing a "break" from nomination (and whether familiarity-weariness might also play a role, as it has with some other directors who weren't nominated after a few years of nominations, even though their snubbed films might've been among their finest). Lastly, there is a subtle element to consider that might come into play -- the film is about sabermetrics and how Billy Beane managed to build a successful winning team despite tight restrictions on spending. Now think about how, on at least a subconscious level, that constant theme might bounce around in the minds of AA voters amid the ongoing political environment and lead-in to a national election. Not to overstate it, by any means, but I think it's important to note this theme in the film and how it could come across in the minds of viewers (I'm not saying this is the film's intent, or the actual real "lesson" of the situation etc, all I'm saying it maybe it could unintentionally on some level impact people in this way). Still, Fincher with Sorkin is a powerful combination, and this definitely has the makings of a feel-good sleeper hit. Brad Pitt is also a very popular guy in Hollywood, and I suspect he's about due for an Oscar win soon -- and probably has a good shot at a nomination with this film. So there's plenty working in this film's favor, while also things to consider that might work against it. Overall, though, it's hard to bet against the Fincher-Sorkin team.

Carnage -- "Good." A satirical film with such a great cast, a renowned director, adapted from a stage play, and a sort of meditation on the conflicting worldviews about God, violence, and human nature. The trailer already demonstrates how good this film probably will be, and we have the ensemble factor (group of great actors in meaty roles who are the focus of the entire film) that appeals strongly to many SAG voters. On the other hand, this will be Polanski's third feature-length film since his win for The Pianist which was influenced by the controversy about his legal case. Since that time, there was his arrest and the highly public dissemination of testimony transcripts from the original case, lots of public debate that lead to taking of sides among a lot of elites in Hollywood, and I think there are probably a lot of AA voters who would prefer to not have to see all of that brought up again amid renewed controversy. The Academy Awards Ceremony is attempting to reach a bigger audience again, and I suspect there will be a sense that nobody wants all of the transcripts and arguments and media focus again. The flip side is if there's a desire to try to "normalize" things again by giving the film (or at least Polanski himself, as a director) a nomination. Or maybe there's just a sense that it's all over with now, and that no problems or controversy will arise that would negatively impact the AA, so the film avoids any potential negative obstacles in that regard. There's still the potential problem of how rare it is for comedies to get nominations, and a film that presents humanized versions of arguments on all sides, in a fashion meant to allow audiences to relate to each point at a different time, might meet with some resistance among AA voters in light of the same political considerations and national election atmosphere that I've mentioned with regard to other films. Ultimately, I tend to think the right rating for this film's chances is "good," but I also kind of have a gut feeling it actually has much stronger odds after all -- especially in the directing category, as well as likely more than one acting nomination (possibly even two in the same cataegory).

War Horse -- "Good."  I can't honestly rank this one higher because I simply don't know much at all about it. I know the basic concept, I've seen a couple of stills, and I know Spielberg is directing it. I also know it's from a children's book, and that apparently they had a very hard time adapting the book to film. It's easy to see the words "Spielberg" and "war film" and think "Oscar nomination gold." But I think that the type of story -- a child's search for his beloved horse during WWI -- could go either way, depending on how sentimental it is and how much it weaves a child's tale in a way that truly resonates with adult viewers. The trailer I saw has lots of soaring imagery, images of the horse running through several war settings, a lot of majestic boy + horse scenes amid waving fields, and plenty of shots of people staring longingly or emotionally toward the horse or toward war. There was dramatic soaring music. There was almost no dialogue at all. And that's all great if it adds up to a great film, but it's not easy to tell much from such a trailer. I get no sense for the film other than "The boy is awed by the horse, the horse hates being trapped in war, and there's a lot of soaring majestic scenes." I trust Spielberg, he's one of the greatest directors of all time and on my own personal short-list of favorite directors. So this isn't a knock at him or the film at all, but rather an early assessment of what I've seen so far of the film and why I think it's not clear enough whether this will truly be an Oscar-worthy film that garners lots of support, or another really good, fun, emotional film from a great director but not quite strong enough to get all of the votes needed to overcome several other films.

EDIT 2: My analysis of Moneyball's chances here are flawed, and the parts about David Fincher should be totally ignored (I'd delete them, but that would feel like cheating). I erroneously thought Fincher was directing the film, and I have no idea why I got that impression. Bennett Miller is the director, and I apologize for my bizarre confusion about that aspect of the film.

Also, I'll come edit this answer more as I see films and get better perspective on their chances etc, but I'll note for now that having seen Moneyball, I definitely think it's got a very strong shot at a nomination for Best Picture, it's an excellent film and the sort that I suspect will appeal to the AA.