It's true. The one year I saw them all (MoMA showed them) I knew which ones would win, and won my pool. One of them was Martin McDonagh's, coincidentally.Greg wrote:This reminds me of a broadcast where, before they were to announce the awards for the shorts, the host said, "And this is where the pools are won."
SAG Nominations and Predictions
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
This reminds me of a broadcast where, before they were to announce the awards for the shorts, the host said, "And this is where the pools are won."Mister Tee wrote:Oh, sure: it's always possible we have an upset at the Oscars, somewhere. But that's not the same as having a race. Every single person in your Oscar pool is going to put down these same four names, because they'd be idiots not to. If anyone loses, everyone loses (as we all did in best picture last year). Where's the sport in that?
-
- Assistant
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
Part of it - though not necessarily the entire explanation - is that social media has exponentially facilitated widespread discussion, vetting, and consensus. Folks still have their own opinions, but the world is coming closer together.
Mister Tee wrote:I want to re-route this season through to about 1992, when there was no SAG, if there were Broadcast Critics no one cared, and BAFTA came months later and had nothing to do with the Oscars. This would have been so much fun.
Fuck these precursors. At this point, you have to figure they're all playing the Broadcasters' game ("No: WE predict the Oscars best!"). How in god's name do all these groups come to all the same conclusions, when I can't even pick a clear favorite in half the categories? Unless one is piggybacking on the other...creating a consensus because they find that some kind of kick?
Oh, sure: it's always possible we have an upset at the Oscars, somewhere. But that's not the same as having a race. Every single person in your Oscar pool is going to put down these same four names, because they'd be idiots not to. If anyone loses, everyone loses (as we all did in best picture last year). Where's the sport in that?
By the way: three of these are perfectly acceptable choices, by me. The other is a deserving actor who's going to be listed alongside Al Pacino/Scent of a Woman in Bad Oscars Happen to Good Actors.
Oldman was charming enough. I admit I was puzzled by his reference to Denzel as an old sparring partner. I guess he was talking about Book of Eli?
The TV awards were marginally less predictable. I fully expected Elisabeth Moss once again, so Claire Foy surprised me (I'm told she won last year, too.) The This Is Us cast seemed truly surprised/elated, so it was easy to feel good for them.
And Olivia Munn and (is it?) Niecy Nash apparently thought their shtik at the nominations was so good, they'd do it again.
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
Good catch. Never mind.anonymous1980 wrote
The Help also won 3 and that film underperformed at the Oscars taking home only Supporting Actress and getting only 3 other nominations.
It all feels so political, like these are primary states that a film has to win before getting the prize. Which makes the Academy Awards ceremony akin to the Convention. Just a formality, without any surprises...Mister Tee wrote
I want to re-route this season through to about 1992, when there was no SAG, if there were Broadcast Critics no one cared, and BAFTA came months later and had nothing to do with the Oscars. This would have been so much fun.
...and then 'Lady Bird' wins Best Picture.
"How's the despair?"
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8654
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
I want to re-route this season through to about 1992, when there was no SAG, if there were Broadcast Critics no one cared, and BAFTA came months later and had nothing to do with the Oscars. This would have been so much fun.
Fuck these precursors. At this point, you have to figure they're all playing the Broadcasters' game ("No: WE predict the Oscars best!"). How in god's name do all these groups come to all the same conclusions, when I can't even pick a clear favorite in half the categories? Unless one is piggybacking on the other...creating a consensus because they find that some kind of kick?
Oh, sure: it's always possible we have an upset at the Oscars, somewhere. But that's not the same as having a race. Every single person in your Oscar pool is going to put down these same four names, because they'd be idiots not to. If anyone loses, everyone loses (as we all did in best picture last year). Where's the sport in that?
By the way: three of these are perfectly acceptable choices, by me. The other is a deserving actor who's going to be listed alongside Al Pacino/Scent of a Woman in Bad Oscars Happen to Good Actors.
Oldman was charming enough. I admit I was puzzled by his reference to Denzel as an old sparring partner. I guess he was talking about Book of Eli?
The TV awards were marginally less predictable. I fully expected Elisabeth Moss once again, so Claire Foy surprised me (I'm told she won last year, too.) The This Is Us cast seemed truly surprised/elated, so it was easy to feel good for them.
And Olivia Munn and (is it?) Niecy Nash apparently thought their shtik at the nominations was so good, they'd do it again.
Fuck these precursors. At this point, you have to figure they're all playing the Broadcasters' game ("No: WE predict the Oscars best!"). How in god's name do all these groups come to all the same conclusions, when I can't even pick a clear favorite in half the categories? Unless one is piggybacking on the other...creating a consensus because they find that some kind of kick?
Oh, sure: it's always possible we have an upset at the Oscars, somewhere. But that's not the same as having a race. Every single person in your Oscar pool is going to put down these same four names, because they'd be idiots not to. If anyone loses, everyone loses (as we all did in best picture last year). Where's the sport in that?
By the way: three of these are perfectly acceptable choices, by me. The other is a deserving actor who's going to be listed alongside Al Pacino/Scent of a Woman in Bad Oscars Happen to Good Actors.
Oldman was charming enough. I admit I was puzzled by his reference to Denzel as an old sparring partner. I guess he was talking about Book of Eli?
The TV awards were marginally less predictable. I fully expected Elisabeth Moss once again, so Claire Foy surprised me (I'm told she won last year, too.) The This Is Us cast seemed truly surprised/elated, so it was easy to feel good for them.
And Olivia Munn and (is it?) Niecy Nash apparently thought their shtik at the nominations was so good, they'd do it again.
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
Was so excited to see my friend Malaya on stage with the ensemble of Three Billboards accepting a SAG! She plays the local news reporter in the film. We were in a play together in college so that was really fun for me.
Last edited by flipp525 on Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
- Laureate
- Posts: 6390
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
The Help also won 3 and that film underperformed at the Oscars taking home only Supporting Actress and getting only 3 other nominations.Sabin wrote:Didn't watch the show but checked in to the Twitter feed.
BJ's fear came through. They copycatted the Globes and the Broadcasters. It sure looks like we've got our acting winners. And 'Three Billboards...' tied with 'American Beauty' and 'Chicago' for taking home the most SAG awards (3). That certainly bodes well for its chances.
But, yeah, I hope BAFTA throws in a wrench at the proceedings. A McDormand/Oldman/Janney/Rockwell slate would be dull. At least Picture is still up for grabs.
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
Didn't watch the show but checked in to the Twitter feed.
BJ's fear came through. They copycatted the Globes and the Broadcasters. It sure looks like we've got our acting winners. And 'Three Billboards...' tied with 'American Beauty' and 'Chicago' for taking home the most SAG awards (3). That certainly bodes well for its chances.
BJ's fear came through. They copycatted the Globes and the Broadcasters. It sure looks like we've got our acting winners. And 'Three Billboards...' tied with 'American Beauty' and 'Chicago' for taking home the most SAG awards (3). That certainly bodes well for its chances.
"How's the despair?"
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
I'm disappointed that Laurie Metcalf didn't win this award, but I can't really muster much ire against Allison Janney winning an Oscar.
"How's the despair?"
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
For me it’s supporting actress. It’s so disheartening to keep seeing Metcalf lose to Janney’s Oscar bait role.The Original BJ wrote:Of course, the one category where I'd most like to see an upset -- Best Actor -- is the one that seems least likely to provide one.)
-
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
I don't know that I have any great predictions, but my ONE wish is that we don't just simply get a repeat of the Oldman/McDormand/Rockwell/Janney Globe/Broadcasters slate. (Of course, the one category where I'd most like to see an upset -- Best Actor -- is the one that seems least likely to provide one.)
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8654
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
So, Wonder Woman apparently wins the Stunt Ensemble award -- which doesn't seem great news for Dunkirk, does it? (I mean for future awards, not here.)
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
Yeah...if this is your one openly sexist position, I sort of find that hard to believe. I think you should put eyes on this.MaxWilder wrote
The SAG host/presenter thing reminds me: My one openly sexist position is that women should not be award-show announcers.
"How's the despair?"
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
It’s an odd situation: Yes, they nominated a black actress, which is good, but not the one people adore right now, from a film have the public has seen. Mary J. Blige hasn’t been topping the charts for a decade-plus, and Mudbound is a small movie; where is this enthusiasm coming from? I would clap, by myself at home, if Tiffany Haddish got an Oscar nod; MJB will elicit a “meh” from me.Mister Tee wrote:I'm not sure what Jada Pinkett Smith is going to say today, as her girl Tiffany was left off again -- along with Octavia Spencer -- but, at the same time, Mudbound got the top category, Mary J. Blige once again turned up
The SAG host/presenter thing reminds me: My one openly sexist position is that women should not be award-show announcers. Remember when Peter Coyote’s voice lent gravitas to the post-envelope-opening “This is the first Oscar for...” narration? Years ago he was replaced by a woman with an impossibly bland, Stepfordian voice. (Maybe multiple women have filled that role and I didn’t notice: that’s how generic and devoid of character the voice is.) I’ve been hoping for years a Peter Coyote type would reclaim the microphone; now that’s officially never happening.
-
- Laureate
- Posts: 6390
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: SAG Nominations and Predictions
[/quote]Eenusch wrote:The decision doesn't mean that the broadcast won't include men onstage at all, as video clips from the film ensemble category might be introduced by its nominated male actors.
It would look bad to see Get Out and The Big Sick introduced by two white women as Betty Gabriel wasn't eligible to be an official nominee in Ensemble because of their "should be individually credited in their title card" rules and the actress who plays Kumail's mom is an unknown to American audiences.