BAFTA stuff.

For the films of 2020
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Okri »

Lol. Sorry guys, I just wanted to sneak a comment on Mulligan during my zoom call.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Sabin »

Updated my post at the bottom to include the nominees. I basically just assumed somebody would post it for us but it is telling we got more engrossed in the argument than posting the actual nominees. I'm going to blame whoever started this thread... Okri! It's Okri's fault. How dare you?
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by OscarGuy »

Sabin, you seem like you're on the verge of understanding, but then never quite get there.

Let's say the committee has 100 or 500 members. There are 8,000 members in BAFTA. Even if only half of those are actors, you're talking about 2.5% or 1.25% of the whole. That's not representational...you cannot draw conclusions from a sampling that small.

If 500 people agree that Vanessa Kirby is one of the best, but the other 3,500 disagree and wouldn't have nominated her. She wouldn't have been nominated. You absolutely cannot and should not draw conclusions from such a small batch of voters. That's what we're telling you.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Big Magilla »

Mister Tee wrote:First off, I wish someone had posted a link to these. I came here looking for the list, and just found arguments.

Sabin has updated his original post to include the nomination lists.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by OscarGuy »

Reza, there's no diversity gun. There's people believing that Hollywood and the film community in general have a majority bias. The attempt is to ensure ALL voices are heard, not just those of straight white men. You don't need to bring it up every 5 minutes.

If every time I posted, I snarked about something going on in Pakistan or attacked every majority-Islam nation in the world at the drop of a hat, you would call me a religious bigot. That you cannot see that and refuse to see that is your character failing. You're a Trumpublican.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Reza »

OscarGuy wrote:And, Reza, this is EXACTLY what we were telling you in the other thread. You take EVERY opportunity you can to bitch and moan about diversity and make snide comments about it. If you don't want to be considered racist, you should probably stop doing that.
But what I said is the truth and has absolutely nothing to do with being racist. I find it funny how these different organizations are reacting to the diversity gun held at them. There is nothing natural with their knee jerk reactions lately. You on the other hand appear to be disappointed with the diversity shown by the Baftas. You want diversity just as long as it fits into your view of it. So much, but not all out. As Sabin mentions below people are comfortable as long as diversity is limited to American films only. You can rant on about wanting the Baftas to be a precursor to the Oscars but I'm not buying that argument of yours. To me your reaction was pretty racist too even if you quickly countered it with the precursor angle. And that's my view of your immediate reaction to these nominations.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Mister Tee »

First off, I wish someone had posted a link to these. I came here looking for the list, and just found arguments.

Second: BAFTA not being a super-precursor is cause for huzzahs, not moans. Now, can we get SAG to shut down, too, and make the Oscars spontaneous again?

Like many, I haven't seen half this stuff, and I have no idea what formulas were used to achieve the slates they did. I also don't much care. BAFTA was coming way too close to just being a Broadcasters-lite, and I'm happy to see it become an idiosyncratic self.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Sabin »

danfrank wrote
I would say that this BAFTA pendulum swing is an overcorrection, but I will take that any day over, for example, last year’s lists where only the usual white suspects were nominated.
I think it's probably an overcorrection as well. I'm guessing they'll figure it out.
"How's the despair?"
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by danfrank »

Okri wrote: I've heard tons of positive things about many of these movies and will make more of an effort to see them now, frankly.
This is what I like about a list that isn’t trying too hard to be an Oscar prognosticator. I watched Rocks (available on Netflix) specifically because it was mentioned so many times on BAFTA’s long lists. It’s a small film that is both heartbreaking and uplifting. Do the young, amateur actors who are nominated by BAFTA give superior performances to the likes of Olivia Colman, Viola Davis, and Carey Mulligan? Undoubtedly no, though they are quite effective.

I would say that this BAFTA pendulum swing is an overcorrection, but I will take that any day over, for example, last year’s lists where only the usual white suspects were nominated.
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by MaxWilder »

Interesting picks but no need to dissect the Oscar implications. How in the world does The Mauritanian make a 5-slot best-film race? (Have not seen it. It just seems tremendously uninteresting.)

Four out their six best actress nominees will not be Oscar-nominated. (Alfre Woodard was eligible last year and the other three are too obscure.) Really, is anyone striking Carey Mulligan from their ballot—we're on day 5 out of 6 for nomination voting, btw—because BAFTA went with Bukky Bakray instead? Her nomination is safe. Viola Davis's, too.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Sabin »

Big Magilla wrote
Sabin, the point is that the BAFTA committee nominations in acting and directing have no more relevance than any other small group. They were put forth by a handful of people, not the entire Academy. That they preferred Vanessa Kirby to Carey Mulligan and Viola Davis will not affect the Oscar nominations that are in the process of being submitted now.

Look at the overall nominations to get a better indication of which films are likely to factor into Oscar voting as Oscar and BAFTA membership overlap quite a bit.
We're saying basically the same thing. What I am saying is there is some Academy overlap, which means we can look to the BAFTA for insight into voting patterns. For example, the fact that Paul Raci got in over Sasha Baron Cohen tells us that Paul Raci is in solid standing despite missing out on a SAG or Globe nominations. Additionally, Chadwick Boseman might be more a product of hype for Best Supporting Actor because they opted for Clarke Peters. Which by the way, good for Clarke Peters! He's very good in the film and has been completely overshadowed.
"How's the despair?"
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Sabin »

Okri wrote
Holy cow, I didn't expect this thread to be so depressing. We mock the BFCA for being relentlessly honed in on being a predictive organization. So when an organization does the exact opposite we throw brick bats at them. Meanwhile, I've heard tonnes of positive things about many of these movies and will make more of an effort to see them now, frankly.

I find the Chlotrudis awards interesting for the same reason.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. People only want them to honor diversity in American films.

The thing I like about this year's Oscar race is literally I have less of an idea what is going to be nominated in many categories than any race since before I started coming to this board. Good. I'm old. I could use the surprises.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote:
OscarGuy wrote
OscarGuy wrote
And what information does it really give us if the nominations were selected by committee? Sure, we all think Vanessa Kirby is a potential nominee, but BAFTA also picked four other Actresses that no one thinks are Oscar contenders. Does that really mean much?
For me it does:
1) I thought Vanessa Kirby might be slightly on the way out now that her film had exited the conversation a little bit. But no, she's still in.
2) Ellen Burstyn still couldn't elbow into the supporting actress race. (NOTE: I keep wanting to write "Pieces of April" which is another reminder of how old I am)
Sabin, the point is that the BAFTA committee nominations in acting and directing have no more relevance than any other small group. They were put forth by a handful of people, not the entire Academy. That they preferred Vanessa Kirby to Carey Mulligan and Viola Davis will not affect the Oscar nominations that are in the process of being submitted now.

Look at the overall nominations to get a better indication of which films are likely to factor into Oscar voting as Oscar and BAFTA membership overlap quite a bit.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Okri »

Holy cow, I didn't expect this thread to be so depressing. We mock the BFCA for being relentlessly honed in on being a predictive organization. So when an organization does the exact opposite we throw brick bats at them. Meanwhile, I've heard tonnes of positive things about many of these movies and will make more of an effort to see them now, frankly.

I find the Chlotrudis awards interesting for the same reason.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: BAFTA stuff.

Post by Sabin »

OscarGuy wrote
Sabin, they are useless as a predictor and the extent to which anyone cared about the BAFTA nominations, it was for their predictive quality. No one pays much attention to the Donatellos, Cesars, or any other European Award. We only pay attention to BAFTA now because it's a precursor.
Yes, we only pay attention to the BAFTA because it's a predictor. But I'm saying I don't agree that there weren't insights to be gleaned from from their nominations as I outlined. They may not be the insights we're used to getting but they are still there. For example: Paul Raci is IN the race.
OscarGuy wrote
And what information does it really give us if the nominations were selected by committee? Sure, we all think Vanessa Kirby is a potential nominee, but BAFTA also picked four other Actresses that no one thinks are Oscar contenders. Does that really mean much?
For me it does:
1) I thought Vanessa Kirby might be slightly on the way out now that her film had exited the conversation a little bit. But no, she's still in.
2) Ellen Burstyn still couldn't elbow into the supporting actress race. (NOTE: I keep wanting to write "Pieces of April" which is another reminder of how old I am)
OscarGuy wrote
That they ignored Carey Mulligan is the biggest headscratcher followed by no mention of Viola Davis, both surefire Oscar nominees. Should we now doubt that either will make the final list and that Frances McDormand will sweep to the end? Not in the least. The Father was ready-made for the BAFTAs. Two lead actors of repute in a British-made film? That doesn't give us insight into Oscar voter thoughts.
No, we shouldn't doubt that they will make the final five because they both have SAG and Golden Globe nominations. We know that they're going to make it into the final five.

My point is that these nominations aren't as predictive as usual but there are still insights to be gleaned from these nominations. They're weirder than usual.

BUT ALSO... (cannot stress this enough)... it only means that more is left up to surprise on Oscar morning, right? It also means guessing the nominees is going to be more of a challenge. And I like that. So, I don't care.
"How's the despair?"
Locked

Return to “93rd Academy Awards”