Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The Original BJ wrote: Best Actor (Drama)
Will Smith (Concussion)

I saw a preview for Concussion last night and, honestly, I burst out laughing. It looks AWFUL. And Will Smith looked like he was starring in an "In Living Color" bit making fun of biopics. Are they serious with this? Makes his The Pursuit of Happyness nomination look like high art.

Mister Tee wrote:

ITALIANO wrote: So - as for Best Supporting Actor: I find it difficult to believe, given the similar (I dont say identical, I say similar) kind of voting group, that only two SAG nominees will repeat at the Oscars. There must be at least a third, and - again: at this point - who has the most chances of being that third? A child actor, Christian Bale or someone who also has a nomination at the Globes some other prizes and a great reputation? Ok, maybe it will be the child, I'm sure he's impressive, I'm not denying this possibility and I've even said that both could be nominated... But OF THESE THREE it's obvious who has an edge over the others.

And I'll counter with: the reason I cited the Tilda Swinton example was I thought it matched up well with Michael Shannon -- someone who got all the TV precursors (Shannon doesn't have the Broadcasters yet, but they'll likely include him) and won something else besides (in her case, NBR), who was well-known (better-known than Shannon: a former winner where he's only a former nominee -- though he does have exposure from Boardwalk Empire), but whose film was not widely seen and didn't seem the sort that normally figures in the Oscar race. Those latter factors I'd say won out in the end, and I think they might well here, too.

Even if you're going to assume that SAG nominees are bound to match 3 or 4 at the Oscars, the other two seem to me to rank ahead of Shannon in likelihood. Tremblay is traveling in tandem with a sure best actress nominee (and possible winner), and their film will at least be in contention for a best picture nomination. The Big Short I'd say is maybe even more likely for a best picture nod, and Bale already demonstrated two years ago he can snap up borderline nominations. Singleton supporting nominations from small films have always been somewhat hard to come by (Steve Buscemi and Peter Saarsgaard can tell you), and, especially in the era of up-to-ten best picture candidates, a connection to a best picture or leading actor/actress nominee is a big leg up. That's why I dispute the idea Shannon is a clear favorite to repeat of those remaining SAG slots.

Ok I see your point. I still think that - in this admittedly confusing race - at this moment he must be considered ti have a better shot at a nomination than others, but I see your point.

What's interesting to me is just how many candidates are running weaker than I thought they would be. Spotlight, Steve Jobs, The Danish Girl, Son of Saul, The Martian, Brooklyn.... all are doing worse than I expected. Now, it's very likely my expectations were wrong in many of these cases (The Danish Girl being an obvious one) but it gives an overall impression that this race is really nebulous.

There was a while where I thought that any acting candidate from an obviously not-populist film that scored both Globe and SAG nominations would make it onto the Oscar list, the theory being that if those two more commercially oriented groups went for someone, their overall support must be pretty strong. An example of this would be someone like Patricia Clarkson in Pieces of April -- I wasn't even thinking about her as a candidate for that movie, which I hadn't even seen when she got the Globe and SAG mentions, but after that, I felt pretty confident about predicting her for Oscar in a reasonably competitive field because of those nominations.

In recent years, though, that reasoning has tripped me up -- Tilda Swinton in We Need to Talk About Kevin would have been one example, with Marion Cotillard in Rust and Bone another. So I think the reasoning behind Mister Tee's doubts about Shannon -- that his movie is such a tiny thing -- is pretty valid, even if Shannon has had a surprisingly strong run this past week.

That said, I also think dws's point is valid too. I saw 99 Homes today, and I agree it's a pretty traditional American indie narrative, far closer to something like Pieces of April or Frozen River (though better than both of those) than more outre efforts like Kevin or Rust and Bone. I think Shannon has about as solid a shot as anybody of getting in, but of course, that's the issue -- there are just way too many candidates trying to get into that field. And it's not like four seem safe and one spot is up for grabs; nope, I'd say there are about twice as many potentials as there are spots, and virtually all of them seem as likely or not as any others.

It's interesting how last year's Supporting Actor slate coalesced very early, and virtually everyone predicted those five nominees with 100% accuracy, yet this year I feel like I'll be lucky to get 2/5 correct.

Mister Tee wrote: And I'll counter with: the reason I cited the Tilda Swinton example was I thought it matched up well with Michael Shannon...but whose film was not widely seen and didn't seem the sort that normally figures in the Oscar race.

As one of the few (only?) here who has seen 99 Homes, it's much more audience-friendly than We Need to Talk About Kevin. It's a pretty traditional film in a narrative and aesthetic sense. It deals with people and a subject not much seen in American films, but it's among the most widely screened films so far this year (was also one of the first screeners sent out), so it's a movie that most Academy voters will have seen. If Shannon misses out, I think it's due to the general muddle in his category more than anything.

ITALIANO wrote: So - as for Best Supporting Actor: I find it difficult to believe, given the similar (I dont say identical, I say similar) kind of voting group, that only two SAG nominees will repeat at the Oscars. There must be at least a third, and - again: at this point - who has the most chances of being that third? A child actor, Christian Bale or someone who also has a nomination at the Globes some other prizes and a great reputation? Ok, maybe it will be the child, I'm sure he's impressive, I'm not denying this possibility and I've even said that both could be nominated... But OF THESE THREE it's obvious who has an edge over the others.

And I'll counter with: the reason I cited the Tilda Swinton example was I thought it matched up well with Michael Shannon -- someone who got all the TV precursors (Shannon doesn't have the Broadcasters yet, but they'll likely include him) and won something else besides (in her case, NBR), who was well-known (better-known than Shannon: a former winner where he's only a former nominee -- though he does have exposure from Boardwalk Empire), but whose film was not widely seen and didn't seem the sort that normally figures in the Oscar race. Those latter factors I'd say won out in the end, and I think they might well here, too.

Even if you're going to assume that SAG nominees are bound to match 3 or 4 at the Oscars, the other two seem to me to rank ahead of Shannon in likelihood. Tremblay is traveling in tandem with a sure best actress nominee (and possible winner), and their film will at least be in contention for a best picture nomination. The Big Short I'd say is maybe even more likely for a best picture nod, and Bale already demonstrated two years ago he can snap up borderline nominations. Singleton supporting nominations from small films have always been somewhat hard to come by (Steve Buscemi and Peter Saarsgaard can tell you), and, especially in the era of up-to-ten best picture candidates, a connection to a best picture or leading actor/actress nominee is a big leg up. That's why I dispute the idea Shannon is a clear favorite to repeat of those remaining SAG slots.

Big Magilla wrote:

ITALIANO wrote:

Big Magilla wrote: Damon's lack of a nomination by either SAG or the Globes should boost his support with Oscar voters,

Well, USUALLY the lack of both these nominations isn't a very good sign, and doesn't boost anyone's chances. But he's got a nomination by the Globes.

I stand corrected re the lack of a Globe nod, but I still say for a highly popular performance in a highly popular film a la Keaton and Ruffalo could leave his supporters fighting mad, emphasis on could.

He certainly has good chances of being nominated.

ITALIANO wrote:

Big Magilla wrote: Damon's lack of a nomination by either SAG or the Globes should boost his support with Oscar voters,

Well, USUALLY the lack of both these nominations isn't a very good sign, and doesn't boost anyone's chances. But he's got a nomination by the Globes.

I stand corrected re the lack of a Globe nod, but I still say for a highly popular performance in a highly popular film a la Keaton and Ruffalo could leave his supporters fighting mad, emphasis on could.

Shannon is an excellent actor, but the fact that he already has a nomination for the mostly forgotten Revolutionary Road could be enough to overcome the guilt Oscar voters might have of leaving him out of the race this time.

ITALIANO wrote:

FilmFan720 wrote:

ITALIANO wrote: So - as for Best Supporting Actor: I find it difficult to believe, given the similar (I dont say identical, I say similar) kind of voting group, that only two SAG nominees will repeat at the Oscars. There must be at least a third, and - again: at this point - who has the most chances of being that third? A child actor, Christian Bale or someone who also has a nomination at the Globes some other prizes and a great reputation? Ok, maybe it will be the child, I'm sure he's impressive, I'm not denying this possibility and I've even said that both could be nominated... But OF THESE THREE it's obvious who has an edge over the others.

Don't forget that Christian Bale also got a Globe nomination yesterday.

I know - but in a different, and let's face it, less competitive category. I think that at the moment Michael Shannon is ahead of him in terms of likelihood.

I agree.

FilmFan720 wrote:

ITALIANO wrote: So - as for Best Supporting Actor: I find it difficult to believe, given the similar (I dont say identical, I say similar) kind of voting group, that only two SAG nominees will repeat at the Oscars. There must be at least a third, and - again: at this point - who has the most chances of being that third? A child actor, Christian Bale or someone who also has a nomination at the Globes some other prizes and a great reputation? Ok, maybe it will be the child, I'm sure he's impressive, I'm not denying this possibility and I've even said that both could be nominated... But OF THESE THREE it's obvious who has an edge over the others.

Don't forget that Christian Bale also got a Globe nomination yesterday.

I know - but in a different, and let's face it, less competitive category. I think that at the moment Michael Shannon is ahead of him in terms of likelihood.

ITALIANO wrote: So - as for Best Supporting Actor: I find it difficult to believe, given the similar (I dont say identical, I say similar) kind of voting group, that only two SAG nominees will repeat at the Oscars. There must be at least a third, and - again: at this point - who has the most chances of being that third? A child actor, Christian Bale or someone who also has a nomination at the Globes some other prizes and a great reputation? Ok, maybe it will be the child, I'm sure he's impressive, I'm not denying this possibility and I've even said that both could be nominated... But OF THESE THREE it's obvious who has an edge over the others.

Don't forget that Christian Bale also got a Globe nomination yesterday.

Sorry, Tee, I'm going to side with ITALIANO on this one. I think, at this point, Michael Shannon may be the only person to emerge from the precursors as a certain nominee. My reason for citing this is the shock nomination for Revolutionary Road, which few, if any, really saw coming. Winslet and DiCaprio couldn't even get nominated for it and they were gunning for nods hardcore. Yes, Winslet got the mention for The Reader, but that's immaterial. The Academy just didn't love Revolutionary Road as everyone thought they would. I also contend that Michael Shannon was very close to a nomination for Take Shelter. My surprise was that 99 Homes even managed to find success. Its release was delayed so long that it looked like a turd right before it arrived and yet it got fairly solid reviews, maybe not ecstatic, but it did quite well.

Big Magilla wrote:
Damon's lack of a nomination by either SAG or the Globes should boost his support with Oscar voters,

Well, USUALLY the lack of both these nominations isn't a very good sign, and doesn't boost anyone's chances. But he's got a nomination by the Globes.

I don't know why, but I equate this Mad Max thing with the Donald Trump phenomenon in American politics. I keep thinking it'll go away, but it keeps getting stronger.

All this internet chatter about The Martian not having a chance at winning because no winning film since Braveheart twenty years ago has failed to get a SAG nod for ensemble is just plain silly. The same logic could be applied to Brooklyn, Room, Carol and The Bridge of Spies, all of which are likely to be nominated for Best Picture in a ten-horse race, any one of which could emerge the winner by a nose. More concerning is SAG's lack of nominations for Keaton and Ruffalo by Spotlight, mirrored by the Globes, which suggests the presumed front-runner is not as strong as most prognosticators would like to believe.

The most intriguing thing to come out of this year's awards so far is the positioning of Vikander in these races. While she has a strong shot at being nominated for Best Actress for The Danish Girl, she won't win over Ronan, Larson, Blanchett and Mara or maybe even Rampling, but she could win for that film in support if voters give into the category fraud - she is The Danish Girl of the title, Redmayne's transformation is seen through her eyes, their screen time about even - making this idea more than a little absurd. However, they do have the alternative of nominating and awarding her for Ex Machina in which she is also the female lead, but does have less screen time than her two co-stars. She could very well pull off a Jessica Lange, the emergence of a newly discovered talent who had been around a few years without making much headway and be nominated for both, winning in support, the last time a dual nomination led to a supporting win. That's certainly a more attractive idea to most voters than rewarding a limited talent like Stallone who is poised to break Paul Newman's record of winning for playing a character he created 25 years earlier. The nomination, if it comes, should be reward enough.

Damon's lack of a nomination by either SAG or the Globes should boost his support with Oscar voters, especially those inclined to vote for The Martin for Best Picture. The same holds true for Keaton and Ruffalo for supporters of Spotlight. I see them easily getting in over Cranston, Shannon and Dano. I see Oscar's supporting nods going to Rylance, Elba, Keaton, Ruffalo and either Tremblay or Stallone, the kid vs. the old guy.

Fonda, Leigh and Mirren are all hanging on by a thread. I see Vikander and Stewart as the most likely to duke it out for supporting actress, with those three competing with Winslet and Walters for the also-ran slots, Mirren being the weakest of the bunch.