Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

For the films of 2012
rudeboy
Adjunct
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:00 am
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby rudeboy » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:32 am

Yes, I don't see anyone but Tommy Lee Jones winning the SAG. Three awards for Lincoln, most likely - Day-Lewis and the cast too. Whether that will give Lee Jones the momentum to win a second Oscar depends on a lot - including whether the Academy have the stomach for Django Unchained or feel obliged to finally vote DiCaprio an Oscar. Right now, having seen neither film, I think Lee Jones is the one to beat.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15640
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby Big Magilla » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:55 am

criddic3 wrote:Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but it occurred to me that this is Robert De Niro's first individual SAG nomination. What are the chances he wins this award over Arkin or Jones?

I would think slight. I think this one is Tommy Lee Jones' to lose.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby criddic3 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:18 am

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but it occurred to me that this is Robert De Niro's first individual SAG nomination. What are the chances he wins this award over Arkin or Jones?
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7352
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby Sabin » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:28 pm

Chiming in late and really just about Bradley Cooper in particular...

There are two reasons why Bradley Cooper might not:
1) Like Paul Giamatti before him, it's easy to take the star of an Oscar-ready romantic comedy for granted. Like Mark Wahlberg before him, it's easy to take the center of a dysfunctional family story for granted.
2) Gravitas. Bona fides. He's the star of The Hangover. Limitless. The A-Team. Where's the respect? And he's been around for a few years now so it's not like this can be a star is born moment for him.

Why I don't think these things matter:
1) These are the comments of somebody who has not seen the film itself. And comparisons to Wahlberg's work is absurd! I'll admit to being pretty shocked by Paul Giamatti's snub, but that was more a distillation of a persona rather than what Cooper is doing. And Wahlberg while good in The Fighter let other people steal the scenes. A better comparison would be Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets. He isn't playing a ne'er do well who is finding love. He is playing a "Special" person who is finding love. Bradley Cooper is playing somebody who is bipolar and that is on the screen at every moment, which is to say this is a big, showy performance.
2) This I understand. And it doesn't begin to apply to women. When women go from making crap to art, they are rewarded. When actors do the same, the response is almost skepticism. That being said, why is this not coming up when we speak of Hugh Jackman who has made just as much crap? I think Bradley Cooper falls more into more of the story of something Hollywood can be proud of rather than discriminate against. This may not be a star is born moment for him, but it is a "get your act together and you can do this" message.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15640
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:00 am

The popularity of My Big Fat Greek Wedding was something I never got. It was stupid and insulting, but it was produced by Tom Hanks so it had an air of respectability as well as huge box office.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was the only film for adults released in the first nine or ten months of the year that wasn't a disappointment. It's got the same feel good vibe as A Room with a View if not the quality. It is what it is.

Django Unchained was screened for SAG nominators. The question is how many of them showed up or had already submitted their ballots before screening.

I think Oscar will probably line up with SAG in four out of five nominees in all acting categories. Cooper, Watts, Bardem and Kidman are the most vulnerable, but who will replace them?
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12534
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby OscarGuy » Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:12 am

Tee, I think My Big Fat Greek Wedding might be a bad comparison...at least if you don't want to be upset. I think Wedding would have been akin to The Blind Side in that it disappointed so many with a Best Picture nomination based on excellent box office, not terrible notices from critics and an appealing lead actress (with the latter providing a different Oscar category victory). Wedding was nominated for screenplay, so it's not like it wasn't on the radar and I think had they had a 10-wide list back then, Wedding would surely have been close to or even in that list.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6409
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:24 am

By morning everyone will have moved on to the Globes, so, let me throw in some brief comments about these:

It may be that Django Unchained wasn't seen by enough voters thanks to late release, but, be that as it may, Harvey Weinstein had his primary horse identified: Silver Linings Playbook's grosses may still be middling, but it's going to be Harvey's strong runner throughout Oscar season -- maybe even enough that Russell gets another directing nomination despite his film's lack of visual flash.

Many are throwing around the "no best picture winner since Braveheart has failed to get a SAG ensemble nod" precedent to say Zero Dark Thirty had a terrible day. Granted, The Hurt Locker showing up at SAG helped that film in its Oscar run, and Bigelow and company would have been happier to repeat the coup. But Zero Dark seems to fall in the range of other films without large and distinctive acting ensembles that have missed at SAG but still got at least best picture nominations -- There Will Be Blood, Up in the Air, Michael Clayton, Hugo. And, you know, SAG has only been giving the prize since 1995, so we're not talking DGA-length of correlation.

I'd say the issue that most identifies Cooper with Paul Giammatti/Sideways is not their ages but their films' genres: leading actors in comedies have had some difficulty over the years getting nominations even when the alternative drama candidates were mediocre. Nonetheless, I'm with Sonic in thinking most here are wildly underestimating Cooper and similarly overstating Jackman's Les Miz chances. The middling-to-poor reviews for the latter film keep pouring in, and Jackman hasn't got close to the praise Day-Lewis/Cooper/Washington/Phoenix have. It's only his connection to an alleged Oscar juggernaut that keeps him in the conversation...and if the juggernaut doesn't jug, I could see him fading easily.

Having not seen the Master, I can't judge if Phoenix's work will be as much anathema to the Academy as Fassbender's was last year. Today was obviously not a great sign, but I think both Phoenix and Trintignant have some remaining hope with AMPAS -- though very likely not both.

The answer to my question about where voters would go looking for actress candidates beyond the obvious Lawrence/Chastain was Nowhere Interesting. Even Cotillard's nomination seems to have sprung as much from aggressive campaigning as from appreciation of her work, and Watts and (esp.) Mirren are lazy picks. I do think Riva will revive at the Oscars, but Weisz is probably a pipe dream.

Except for the don't-know-what-to-make-of-it Bardem mention, the supporting actor slate is the one that's been visualized for most of the fall: a bunch of winners, all of whom have at least one lead nomination. It's still possible someone from Django will crash the group, if the film is more widely seen by Academy voters over the next month. The losers are, once again, the little-known names (this year Jason Clarke and Eddie Redmayne) who've broken through with critics late in the year and probably just won't have enough time to rise in prominence. I think the move of Oscar voting earlier and earlier each year has hurt those sort of candidates most of all.

In supporting actress, voters banked the three clear contenders, made one depressingly lazy choice in Maggie Smith, and one loosey-goosey crazy choice in Kidman (though I'm told Kidman campaigned like hell, so it wasn't as if voters unearthed a buried treasure). I'm more tolerant of movies like Marigold Hotel than many here -- I don't care to see them vying for major Oscars, but I don't openly dislike them (I remember coming out of Chocolat thinking, I have nothing against this film as long as it's not nominated for best picture). The problem is, Marigold Hotel is a shabby piece of formulaic writing that doesn't reach Chocolat level in its best moments. And Maggie Smith...she's been a uniquely wonderful screen presence for almost half a century, but her role here can be summed up as "I'm going to say the most ridiculously over the top racist thing you can imagine...wait: ten minutes have gone by; time for me to say something else appalling...here I am again, doing something so cartoonishly racist you wouldn't believe it of your worst enemy...oops, now we're in the film's final moments: suddenly I'm astonishingly tolerant, and also displaying a competence seen nowhere in my role or performance till now, which will provide the movie with an utterly unearned happy ending". Normally you expect these imports to show a modicum of class and integrity rare in Hollywood studio efforts. But Marigold Hotel is a Katherine Heigl movie with old Brits. And, yes, it could end up nominated for best picture -- though I'm hoping the ensemble nomination is like the one My Big Fat Greek Wedding got, which led mostly nowhere.

One last thought: the general feeling is that, regardles of how Les Miz fares elsewhere, Anne Hathaway is going to sweep the three TV awards on her way to an easy Oscar win. No doubt the Broadcasters think that way, and will vote accordingly. No one thinks Sally Field has a chance because she's already over-rewarded with two Oscars. But, remember: those prizes were in the pre-SAG era. And we've seen other performers whose Oscar wins pre-dated the SAG years take unexpected SAG prizes: Duvall and Bates in '98, Walken in '02. Maybe voters will choose to honor another actress they've been watching almost 50 years. What would that do to the Oscar expectation game?

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:29 pm

Big Magilla wrote:Bradley Cooper, who will be 38 in less than a month, is old enough to be co-star Jennifer Lawrence's father. There's nothing new in Hollywood.


At least Bradley Cooper is gorgeous. David O. Russell originally wanted to cast Vince Vaughn. Vaughn is only a few years older than Cooper, but looks like he is 15 years his senior.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow

bizarre
Assistant
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby bizarre » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:17 pm

These are strange. I can still imagine as little as 3 films overlapping with Oscar in each category but Actor.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15640
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:48 pm

Bradley Cooper, who will be 38 in less than a month, is old enough to be co-star Jennifer Lawrence's father. There's nothing new in Hollywood.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby Sonic Youth » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:17 pm

OscarGuy wrote:Since when is 37 young (for those older, I'm sure you consider it young), but what age is too young for an Oscar?

Joaquin Phoenix is 38. Why is he not being suggested as unlikely to get nominated because of age?

Jean Dujardin was 39. And we're not talking about winners, but nominees. Yes, the winners in this category tend to be 40's or 50's, but Heath Ledger, Phoenix, Terrence Howard, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling, Jeremy Renner, Jesse Eisenberg, James Franco, Javier Bardem...each nominated while in their 30's. Again, we aren't talking about a winner here. We're talking about a nomination.


Honestly I didn't realize Cooper was as old as 37, but at least this strengthens my argument for him, so thanks.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby flipp525 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:50 pm

OscarGuy wrote:Also, I think people owe Magilla a bit of an apology. While I still have doubts that Trintignant will make it to the Oscars, Maggie Smith did nab a Supporting Actress nomination. I'm not sure it will carry over to Oscar, but he does deserve some credit for suggesting it.

An apology? For what? It's not like anyone lambasted him for that prediction (which still, by the way, hasn't even come true yet).
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12534
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby OscarGuy » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:37 pm

Since when is 37 young (for those older, I'm sure you consider it young), but what age is too young for an Oscar?

Joaquin Phoenix is 38. Why is he not being suggested as unlikely to get nominated because of age?

Jean Dujardin was 39. And we're not talking about winners, but nominees. Yes, the winners in this category tend to be 40's or 50's, but Heath Ledger, Phoenix, Terrence Howard, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ryan Gosling, Jeremy Renner, Jesse Eisenberg, James Franco, Javier Bardem...each nominated while in their 30's. Again, we aren't talking about a winner here. We're talking about a nomination.

And let's also realize that Harvey has managed Oscar wins the last two years running for his lead actors. Those were of course tougher performances, so I don't consider Cooper having any shot at an Oscar, but there's no reason to believe that Harvey, knowing how he got stiffed for Richard Gere a decade ago, has learned a lesson or two and will champion Cooper, the ostensibly lead actor of a multi-Oscar nominated film up for Best Picture of the year. I see Cooper as being a stronger choice than someone like John Hawkes or Joaquin Phoenix at this point.

As to this whole Mark Wahlberg didn't get nominated for The Fighter, let's also realize that The Fighter wasn't a Weinstein joint and Wahlberg was consistently left out of lists for Best Actor. His lone nomination came from the Globes. So far, Cooper's posted nominations with the Broadcast Film Critics and San Diego Film Critics, and even won the National Board of Review award. Comparisons between the two don't hold water.

Also, I think people owe Magilla a bit of an apology. While I still have doubts that Trintignant will make it to the Oscars, Maggie Smith did nab a Supporting Actress nomination. I'm not sure it will carry over to Oscar, but he does deserve some credit for suggesting it.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4175
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:35 pm

Well, my first grouchy thought was "Oh yeah, this is the point of the season where cold water gets thrown on all my hopes and dreams."

We've discussed this in past posts, but it's worth bringing up again...who do we think is the LEAST famous nominee of these supporting ten? Because, WOW, character actors certainly didn't get their due today. For god's sakes, nine of the ten are Oscar winners, save Anne Hathaway (her trophy pending, of course), and many of those wins are in the lead categories.

That said, Nicole Kidman's nomination provided the one pleasant surprise for me, and I say this having truly loathed The Paperboy, a most unpleasant, practically ludicrous movie. But Kidman's brazen, off-the-wall performance was such a strange bit of lunacy -- and such an unlikely awards candidate -- I have to admire the gusto of voters for choosing her...

...because some of the other female acting nominees were real bummers. Given unsettled Actress and Supporting Actress fields, with lots of candidates on the margins from which to choose, I see no good reason why we just needed to default to Helen Mirren and Maggie Smith.

I still think Emmanuelle Riva will get an Oscar nod -- Fernanda Montenegro (and Emily Watson in '96) missed here, but the slightly more adventurous Academy pushed them through -- but I'm having a really hard time seeing Trintignant break through in Best Actor.

As for the (to me) biggest disappointment of the morning, I guess I will have to prepare myself for the real possibility that Joaquin Phoenix might be Michael Fassbender all over again -- one performance I couldn't do without in Best Actor, talked about all season long, omitted for more user-friendly candidates.

Sonic, I have made the argument (w/r/t Cooper) that Oscar is a lot friendlier to young women without serious resumes than young men. But I'm in agreement with you that Cooper's strong work makes him as likely a candidate as any, save Day-Lewis. I still think this is a race where only one candidate (a la Jamie Foxx in '04) is a certain nominee, and ALL of the rest of them are fighting for those remaining four spots, which means anything could still happen.

Oh, and is there a real possibility that The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is this year's groaner Best Picture nominee?

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Screen Actors Guild Award Nominations

Postby Sonic Youth » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:10 pm

Greg wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:Somebody (can't remember who) made a very strong argument that young men in leading roles have a much more difficult time breaking through than young leading women do, and this must be the basis behind people's reluctance to concede Cooper the nomination. I remember Joseph Fiennes in Shakespeare and Paul Giamatti (although no young actor) in Sideways, too.


Giamatti was 37 when Sideways was released. Cooper is 37.


I stand corrected, but can you blame me? Giamatti was born middle-aged.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler


Return to “85th Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest