JD Walters at 2010-01-11 19:18:47:
James Cameron's nomination from the WGA is just as puzzling as that from the Golden Globes. As Pres. Obama would say, let us be clear: Avatar's achievement is entirely visual. That Cameron has created a fully immersive, dazzlingly realistic fantasy world is beyond question. But the story itself is pedestrian and derivative. (For those who need convincing, here is a beat-by-beat comparison of Avatar to Pocahontas). The dialog and characterization are serviceable but nothing more. Cameron did not deserve this nomination for the writing.

I want Neustadter and Weber to win for (500) Days of Summer, easily the most innovative, affecting romantic comedy I have ever seen. In the adapted category I have no preference having seen only "Star Trek", but given the other buzz it's been getting I'd say "Up in the air" is a shoe-in.

But what's "Star Trek" doing in the 'adapted' category? Granted it's based on the series premise by Gene Roddenberry but for me an adaptation should be more tightly based on a prior literary or cinematic work. I don't consider the Star Wars prequels to be an adaptation of the original trilogy, for example.
Jeff at 2010-01-11 19:37:45:
Not that it has a snowball's chance in hell, but I'd love to see A SERIOUS MAN take the prize... such a masterpiece.
Mahmoud at 2010-01-12 03:08:52:
I think half of the nominees here wont reach the Oscars..

Where the hell is Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds?!

I think Mark Boal will win the original and Jason Reitman will win the adapted.
daveed at 2010-01-12 15:52:09:
Avatar nominated? What the hell??

I agree wholeheartedly w/ JD Walters. And I've been reading the script. It's bad.
Carlos M. Hernandez at 2010-01-13 10:46:32:
@Mahmoud: This was covered last week, I believe. Inglourious Basterds is not a WGA script and therefore wouldn't be nominated by the WGA.