SAG Nominations
In short....yes
Further...under your prediction of the wins coupled together, I cannot be alone to feel I will be much more shocked on February 28th were Social Network and Eisenberg to win compared to King's Speech and Firth.
caveat: none of this involves how I view the Best Director race whatsoever, I find it hard to see what Fincher even did more successfully than Hooper (both lackluster), but clearly I'll admit the former is the frontrunner.
Further...under your prediction of the wins coupled together, I cannot be alone to feel I will be much more shocked on February 28th were Social Network and Eisenberg to win compared to King's Speech and Firth.
caveat: none of this involves how I view the Best Director race whatsoever, I find it hard to see what Fincher even did more successfully than Hooper (both lackluster), but clearly I'll admit the former is the frontrunner.
You really think The King's Speech is more likely to win Best Picture than The Social Network?Bog wrote:Unfortunately (either way really), at this point it's hard to think you don't have your "blanks" reversed.Greg wrote:I'm guessing that will edge out for Best Actor as the Academy will return to its decades-old tradition of awarding Best Actor to the actor in the Best Picture when that actor's character is at the heart of the film.
Unfortunately (either way really), at this point it's hard to think you don't have your "blanks" reversed.Greg wrote:I'm guessing that will edge out for Best Actor as the Academy will return to its decades-old tradition of awarding Best Actor to the actor in the Best Picture when that actor's character is at the heart of the film.
Oscarguy, I just watched Rabbit Hole last night and I don't think Bening was anymore unsympathetic than Kidman's cold and detached performance. The last few dialogue-less minutes of the latter were indeed heartwrenching, but I don't see Oscar voters going for it. I do, however, agree that Black Swan is just not the type of film that garners top Oscars in the end. Some hate it, some love it. Annette's recent favorable history with the Governor's Board will come into play during balloting and she's still my pick so far. If SAG rewards her again Oscar voters will have no choice but to follow suit.
SAG was clearly trying to generate controversy by nominating Swank. I doubt she would even be there if it wasn't for Bening. I expect Oscar voters to push their support behind Williams for that 5th spot. I can't imagine Swank getting more #1 votes over her. Moore's all but out of it.
Amy's nomination is secure, but I'm thinking with her Oscar-bait Janis Joplin biopic coming out next year Academy members may wish to reward her for that instead. Kunis isn't winning without Portman, I don't see voters gravitating toward Carter either unless the film gets major support elsewhere. That leaves Leo and Steinfield, with the former getting the slight edge. With no major frontrunner this year, however, we may actually have a case where the actress who comes in 4th or 5th in nominations winds up taking the prize by default and that includes Weaver if she lands the nom.
Renner's the crowd-pleaser contender and I have no problems with him getting in, but I'd love for Ruffalo to somehow pull off a well deserved win. Bale's in front right now, though.
Edited By mashari on 1292562462
SAG was clearly trying to generate controversy by nominating Swank. I doubt she would even be there if it wasn't for Bening. I expect Oscar voters to push their support behind Williams for that 5th spot. I can't imagine Swank getting more #1 votes over her. Moore's all but out of it.
Amy's nomination is secure, but I'm thinking with her Oscar-bait Janis Joplin biopic coming out next year Academy members may wish to reward her for that instead. Kunis isn't winning without Portman, I don't see voters gravitating toward Carter either unless the film gets major support elsewhere. That leaves Leo and Steinfield, with the former getting the slight edge. With no major frontrunner this year, however, we may actually have a case where the actress who comes in 4th or 5th in nominations winds up taking the prize by default and that includes Weaver if she lands the nom.
Renner's the crowd-pleaser contender and I have no problems with him getting in, but I'd love for Ruffalo to somehow pull off a well deserved win. Bale's in front right now, though.
Edited By mashari on 1292562462
"The only thing I regret about my past is the length of it. If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes... only sooner."--Tallulah Bankhead
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19318
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8637
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
If you really want a laugh, head on over to Wells' site, where he's running an I-was-so-right-a-thon on the subject of Lesley Manville. The belly-laugh? He asks O'Neil why Sony didn't campaign Manville in support, and O'Neil replies, "The foreign press would see right through that category fraud". Presumably he said this with a straight face.
I've had a demonic work day, and thus been unable to join in the late conversation. A few things I wanted to chime in on:
I'm with BJ in finding Get Low minor but likable enough. The anecdote at the core is 50s play-ish, but with enough twist to make it interesting. The idea that it's phantasmagorically boring just doesn't gibe with my experience; it's perfectly pleasant. And actors have been nominated for far less effective performances than the one Duvall gives.
Amy Adams is an interesting case. It's true that most of the winning of the two has been done by Leo (except for the Las Vegas Critics, today). But every review I've read has raved about them equally. And, good god, by now isn't it obvious some voters love themselves some Amy? This'll be her third nomination in six years, for a significant change of pace. You can't discount the chances of a candidate like that ending up the winner.
I don't find this year's competition dull at all. We have, as I noted a few weeks ago, four acting categories with solid entries -- enough there'll be key omissions in each one of them. It's true there are no movies that are universally popular, but there are enough that are interesting to propel the race. Actually, in a way it's a year in which the field of ten might work: it's easier to find ten movies I'm in like with than five I'm in love with.
As for the best actress race: it'll be very interesting to see what the Broadcasters do. I mean, take for granted Portman and Bening can both win Globes. Also figure that, whatever the SAG result, we can rationalize it away: Bening might win just because she's a dues-paying veteran, like alot of the no-name voters (veterans won in '07 and '08 only to lose the Oscar to younger folk); Portman could because her film's a bigger hit and Bening's already won.
The question is: will the Broadcasters commit -- or will they wuss out with a tie? Do you realize they had a tie for best actress the last two years? It just occurred to me tonight (last year, I think I was so shocked Bullock was one of the two, the oddity didn't register). It is, to say the least, a mathematical freak to get any tie in a field of over 100 votes; two consecutive suggests things aren't quite on the up-and-up -- that it was the Broadcasters' way of saying, We can't decide who the Oscar favorite is, so we'll hedge our bets and keep our fabulous prediction streak alive. Will they venture a third? Or will they take a step toward pushing one to favored status?
I've had a demonic work day, and thus been unable to join in the late conversation. A few things I wanted to chime in on:
I'm with BJ in finding Get Low minor but likable enough. The anecdote at the core is 50s play-ish, but with enough twist to make it interesting. The idea that it's phantasmagorically boring just doesn't gibe with my experience; it's perfectly pleasant. And actors have been nominated for far less effective performances than the one Duvall gives.
Amy Adams is an interesting case. It's true that most of the winning of the two has been done by Leo (except for the Las Vegas Critics, today). But every review I've read has raved about them equally. And, good god, by now isn't it obvious some voters love themselves some Amy? This'll be her third nomination in six years, for a significant change of pace. You can't discount the chances of a candidate like that ending up the winner.
I don't find this year's competition dull at all. We have, as I noted a few weeks ago, four acting categories with solid entries -- enough there'll be key omissions in each one of them. It's true there are no movies that are universally popular, but there are enough that are interesting to propel the race. Actually, in a way it's a year in which the field of ten might work: it's easier to find ten movies I'm in like with than five I'm in love with.
As for the best actress race: it'll be very interesting to see what the Broadcasters do. I mean, take for granted Portman and Bening can both win Globes. Also figure that, whatever the SAG result, we can rationalize it away: Bening might win just because she's a dues-paying veteran, like alot of the no-name voters (veterans won in '07 and '08 only to lose the Oscar to younger folk); Portman could because her film's a bigger hit and Bening's already won.
The question is: will the Broadcasters commit -- or will they wuss out with a tie? Do you realize they had a tie for best actress the last two years? It just occurred to me tonight (last year, I think I was so shocked Bullock was one of the two, the oddity didn't register). It is, to say the least, a mathematical freak to get any tie in a field of over 100 votes; two consecutive suggests things aren't quite on the up-and-up -- that it was the Broadcasters' way of saying, We can't decide who the Oscar favorite is, so we'll hedge our bets and keep our fabulous prediction streak alive. Will they venture a third? Or will they take a step toward pushing one to favored status?
- OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
hence the "most categories" statement.MovieWes wrote:I'd say that The Social Network is as close to a sure thing as we've seen this season.OscarGuy wrote:We have no consensus frontrunners in most categories, yet no one seems very excited about this Oscar season. After all these years of pre-determined conclusions, we don't have one mid-December yet and there's still grousing it seems.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
1. I was just kidding about Bening vs Swank. It's good for a chuckle and it's not like I'm rooting for it to happen in real terms. But remember when Dreamgirls was ignored and O'Neill was practically in tears? Anyone who's that obssessively linking himself to the oscars... well, I'm liable just to hope for the worst for amusement.
2. But frankly, my favourite performance is from Hye-Ja Kim. She won't get nominated, so I don't really mind if the Oscar nominations announcement inspires guffaws as opposed to mild enthusiasm.
3. Yeah, Renner's run is REALLY surprising me. I was really looking forward to his performance, but after seeing the film I genuinely have no clue why people are responding to him so well. Firth, Bridges and Renner are really displaying just how much career momentum means (though to be fair, I definitely think Firth would be nominated for Eric's bete noir regardless of his success last year).
4. That stated, I really hope Moore gets nominated. IN LEAD. No category fraud bullshit, and nothing justifying the people who said "You're the real lead but can you go supporting to justify oscar politics?" I understand how the Oscars can be people's first "lead" into "quality film" (sorry for the quotes), but eventually you outgrow that, right?
5. BJ, it's obvious how Weaver could win above The Fighter gals. Vote splitting!!!! (Just for you, Italiano. Just for you. Also, I'm kidding. Weaver ain't winning. It'd be awesome if she could, though).
2. But frankly, my favourite performance is from Hye-Ja Kim. She won't get nominated, so I don't really mind if the Oscar nominations announcement inspires guffaws as opposed to mild enthusiasm.
3. Yeah, Renner's run is REALLY surprising me. I was really looking forward to his performance, but after seeing the film I genuinely have no clue why people are responding to him so well. Firth, Bridges and Renner are really displaying just how much career momentum means (though to be fair, I definitely think Firth would be nominated for Eric's bete noir regardless of his success last year).
4. That stated, I really hope Moore gets nominated. IN LEAD. No category fraud bullshit, and nothing justifying the people who said "You're the real lead but can you go supporting to justify oscar politics?" I understand how the Oscars can be people's first "lead" into "quality film" (sorry for the quotes), but eventually you outgrow that, right?
5. BJ, it's obvious how Weaver could win above The Fighter gals. Vote splitting!!!! (Just for you, Italiano. Just for you. Also, I'm kidding. Weaver ain't winning. It'd be awesome if she could, though).