SAG NOMINATIONS

For the films of 2014
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:06 pm

flipp525 wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:Just looking back a few years, there is usually one or two SAG nominees from each category that miss out on an Oscar nomination. It is very possible the four most surprising nominees this year (Gyllenhaal, Aniston, Watts, Duvall) will not spoil our Oscar predix. 2009 is an anomaly in how closely the SAG and Oscar nominations matched.

Um, but I want the Oscar predix to be spoiled. There's nothing worse than a total slate of ho-hum expected nominations on Oscar nom morning. For example, I think a category like Best Supporting Actress is ripe for a Marcia Gay Harden-type dark horse to come in this year. As Mister Tee keeps invoking, Patricia Arquette (as good as she is in Boyhood - and, yes, ITALIANO, it's a good performance) is no Mo'Nique.


Are you saying you want the predictions to be spoiled simply to keep things interesting, or because you find the current general consensus to be a bad crop of potential nominees? Gyllenhaal would be a spoiler I could celebrate, while Watts would be an unwelcome shift from the common wisdom in the acting categories. If the popular predictions are going to be upended, please let the interlopers be worthy of crashing the party.

As for Supporting Actress, do you have a certain person in mind to pull off this shocking win? Chastain, maybe.
"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

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

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:41 pm

The Original BJ wrote:rolo -- I must strongly disagree with your take on the Directing race. I don't view Ava DuVernay as being in any kind of precarious position in that category. Now, if she's omitted by the Globes and DGA, I would change my tune, but right now I see no way one could argue that she's an UNLIKELY nominee, given how well her film seems poised to do, combined with the breakthrough factor of being the first woman of color nominated in that category. And while I could see Tyldum OR Marsh landing in Director, it's unfathomable to me that both would place given the directors' propensity for nominating hipper candidates. Which is to say, I rate Wes Anderson, Eastwood, Fincher, Leigh, Miller (who actually DID get a nomination his first go-round), even Chazelle as being very much still a part of this race. I just don't see how the "spoiler" possibilities are limited in any way at this point, given the precursors to come, as well as the fact that the Directors often pluck out totally random candidates for recognition on nomination morning.


You are totally right about Miller. I mistakenly remembered CAPOTE being nominated for Best Picture, but not director. At the time it seemed like the type of film to have its director replaced by an odd-man-out director (I recall hoping it would be Cronenberg for A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE), but there was no odd-man-out nominee that year.

As for DuVernay, perhaps I am so deflated by the shocking ZERO DARK THIRTY snub that I figured there was no point in hoping for another woman being nominated any time soon. Of all the branches in the Academy, the director's branch may be the most old, white, and male of any in the Academy. I honestly doubt they give a fuck what historical significance nominating DuVernay would mean. However, I am going to let your optimism be infectious and not write off her chances so definitively.

I had to look-up what Chazelle directed. His nomination would be as what-the-fuck as Benh Zeitlin was, but since he is after all a white male I should not underestimate his chances.
"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

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7365
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby Sabin » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:54 pm

Don't have much to say. I was a little surprised by A Most Violent Year's shutout. Even though I'm not a big fan of the film, I thought it was playing well in its screenings. And the screeners were certainly sent out to enough homes. I'm guessing Selma just wasn't seen enough. It's funny that nobody's jumping to that defense for Unbroken because nobody expected it to do terribly well in this crowd anyway. Tomorrow will be when Unbroken gets its retribution if ever. Remember last year when Lee Daniels' The Butler surprised everyone with three SAG nominations and then went bupkiss twenty-four hours later?

Likewise if Naomi Watts get nominated tomorrow, it'll be like Nicole Kidman with The Paperboy. All of a sudden we ask amongst ourselves with a chill: do we have to take this seriously? Everything I've seen from St. Vincent looks pretty dreadful. Couldn't they just nominate her for her strong ensemble work in Birdman and I can just call it a day?

Does anybody know if Jake Gyllenhaal is being pushed for Dramatic or Comedic at the Golden Globes? Dramatic certainly makes sense but I could see them doing something silly and calling the film a satire or something.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is having a pretty terrific week.
"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

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4184
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:24 pm

I thought Selma would be enough of a frontrunner to overcome the late-viewing hurdle, but I can't say its omissions are startling to me. I saw the movie at a screening over Thanksgiving, and it was screened without credits because they weren't even finished yet -- now I'm reading screeners didn't even go out yet. If people can't yet see your movie, it's not racism (as some are carping) when you don't get award nominations.

I don't think its Ensemble omission means much in Oscar terms -- it CLEARLY would have placed in that category for its large (and largely impressive) cast. The Actor omission probably does hurt a lesser known actor like Oyelowo though, in terms of traction, though I still find it really hard to believe that such a seemingly major contender wouldn't bring along the commanding actor (playing Martin Luther King, Jr.!) at its center.

Along those lines, it's hard to make much of the Into the Woods omission either; given that it's something they CLEARLY would have gone for, it's as much in the race for a Best Pic nomination as it was yesterday. (I, too, imagine many just voted for Streep sight unseen, which is stupid, though in this case, at least I didn't find the ultimate outcome objectionable.)

This is the second major group after the Independent Spirits that have cited Gyllenhaal but not Russo.

I feel like we're no less clear on where that fifth Best Actress spot will go. Could be Aniston, could also still be Cotillard, Adams, or Swank -- all performances in movies barely anyone has seen in movies that otherwise have zero traction. (If Adams gets the nomination, this will be the third year in a row she's an Oscar nominee without a SAG nod.)

Not saying Duvall is clearly going all the way to Oscar, but at this point, I'm struggling to come up with an option that AMPAS WILL find more interesting, Mister Tee. I can't even come up with someone that would excite me all that much.

Supporting Actress is already bursting with possibilities as it is -- I highly doubt Watts carries over, but she does prevent someone more buzzed about from gaining traction.

rolo -- I must strongly disagree with your take on the Directing race. I don't view Ava DuVernay as being in any kind of precarious position in that category. Now, if she's omitted by the Globes and DGA, I would change my tune, but right now I see no way one could argue that she's an UNLIKELY nominee, given how well her film seems poised to do, combined with the breakthrough factor of being the first woman of color nominated in that category. And while I could see Tyldum OR Marsh landing in Director, it's unfathomable to me that both would place given the directors' propensity for nominating hipper candidates. Which is to say, I rate Wes Anderson, Eastwood, Fincher, Leigh, Miller (who actually DID get a nomination his first go-round), even Chazelle as being very much still a part of this race. I just don't see how the "spoiler" possibilities are limited in any way at this point, given the precursors to come, as well as the fact that the Directors often pluck out totally random candidates for recognition on nomination morning.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3957
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:37 pm

flipp525 wrote:and, yes, ITALIANO, it's a good performance)


Ok. Why?

(Silence I guess).

Anyway. I've never paid much attention to these prizes, but they definitely mean something.

In Best Actor, well - three are locks by now. Jake Gyllenhaal for the lethargic Nightcrawler (compared, on this board, to Taxi Driver!) is the most reassuring sociopath in the history of movies, and he's only slightly less convincing, as a "bad guy", than Gregory Peck in The Boys from Brazil (he's SO obviously NOT the role he's playing), but in America playing against type is always considered "daring" - so if one has to leave, it will be Steve Carell, not him. Of course, I hope it will be TWO who leave - if only because that means that Timothy Spall will be nominated. (No, I haven't seen Mr Turner. So how do I know that Spall is better than Gyllenhall? I know, I know. Trust Italiano).

Best Actress. Who will take Jennifer Aniston's spot? I still hope it will be Cotillard. The SAG has never been as kind as the Academy is to foreign performers, so yes, unless those two movies are a problem, she can make it.

Best Supporting Actor. On paper, Robert Duvall is the typical name who is nominated here and at the Globes, but is left out by the Academy. He's respected, but the movie clearly isn't. Still, this is also a year when Best Supporting Actor seems to be especially weak, so who knows - he could stay till the end. The other four are locks.

In Best Supporting Actress, only Naomi Watts - for a movie I've never heard of - is really vulnerable (Meryl Streep would be, too, if she werent Meryl Streep). There are several possible alternatives, and while I guess that Jessica Chastain will be the one, others are in the running too (including, I hope, Rene Russo).
Last edited by ITALIANO on Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby flipp525 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:10 pm

rolotomasi99 wrote:Just looking back a few years, there is usually one or two SAG nominees from each category that miss out on an Oscar nomination. It is very possible the four most surprising nominees this year (Gyllenhaal, Aniston, Watts, Duvall) will not spoil our Oscar predix. 2009 is an anomaly in how closely the SAG and Oscar nominations matched.

Um, but I want the Oscar predix to be spoiled. There's nothing worse than a total slate of ho-hum expected nominations on Oscar nom morning. For example, I think a category like Best Supporting Actress is ripe for a Marcia Gay Harden-type dark horse to come in this year. As Mister Tee keeps invoking, Patricia Arquette (as good as she is in Boyhood - and, yes, ITALIANO, it's a good performance) is no Mo'Nique.
"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
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:04 pm

Just looking back a few years, there is usually one or two SAG nominees from each category that miss out on an Oscar nomination. It is very possible the four most surprising nominees this year (Gyllenhaal, Aniston, Watts, Duvall) will not spoil our Oscar predix. 2009 is an anomaly in how closely the SAG and Oscar nominations matched.

Here is the list of how many SAG nominees from each category did not receive a corresponding Oscar nomination:

2013
1 Lead Actress
2 Lead Actors
1 Supporting Actress
2 Supporting Actors

2012
1 Lead Actress
1 Lead Actor
2 Supporting Actresses
1 Supporting Actor

2011
1 Lead Actress
1 Lead Actor
0 Supporting Actresses
1 Supporting Actor

2010
1 Lead Actress
1 Lead Actor
1 Supporting Actress
0 Supporting Actor

2009
0 Lead Actress
0 Lead Actor
1 Supporting Actress
0 Supporting Actor
"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

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

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:44 pm

FilmFan720 wrote:Since the expansion, only one year have all five Ensemble nominees gone on to get Best Picture nominations. This year looks like it could be a repeat, though. All five of these films seem poised to break through, and could be our five Director nominees too.


I have a feeling you could be right. The only one of these films I have yet to see is THE IMITATION GAME. Linklater and Iñárritu certainly seem locks considering how much attention the logistical achievements of their respective films have garnered and how closely that success has been credited to them as directors. After many years of only receiving love from the writer's branch, it looks like Wes Anderson could finally break through with the director's as well as the Academy in general. It is not the funniest nor the deepest of his films, but it certainly is the most Wes Anderson-ian of all his movies, as well as the highest grossing (particularly overseas). I would be very happy with these three nominees.

Assuming THE IMITATION GAME is as good or better than THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, I could live with the two of them rounding out the directing nominations. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING was sappy, but it had more visually panache than I expected. Again, not sure what THE IMITATION GAME offers in the area of directing, but it seems like a tolerable fifth nominee.

I was really hoping for at least one female nominee in the director's branch, but that is looking unlikely even though SELMA and UNBROKEN both have a shot at Best Picture. I also thought this was the year Bennett Miller was going to breakthrough, but it looks like FOXCATCHER will be his third film in a row to be nominated for Best Picture without a corresponding directing nomination. That has to be some sort of record.

The only other possible spoiler I could imagine is Mike Leigh for MR. TURNER, but that seems like a longshot. Nolan and Fincher could be nominated by the DGA, but I doubt the Academy will bestow corresponding nominations.
"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

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6428
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:19 am

I woke up and sleepily watched the DVR -- didn't have the "who needs to be there" list firmly focused -- so my reactions were scattered, except for two: Jake! and Grand Budapest! (Especially the latter. The NBR/AFI omissions gave me my first moment of doubt on the film this season)

As everyone is saying, the December newbies being omitted is a SAG tradition by now. Worth noting: though many late releases have come back to Oscar nominations in recent years, Christoph Waltz is the only performer since Marcia Gay Harden to take an Oscar without a SAG nod. No one's ever won a lead Oscar without the SAG nod. And Selma would have to become the first film since Braveheart, in the SAG pre-history days, to win best picture without SAG Ensemble nomination. Narratives get set based on these early awards, and it's harder these days for late arrivals to crack that.

Foxcatcher, by virtue of fuller release, benefitted here. I still think Steve Carell might be being set up for a disappointment with AMPAS. The best actor category is ripe for excitement, with latecomers Oyelowo, Spall and Cooper all jousting with, probably, Carell and Gyllenhaal for the 4-5 spots.

Let's face reality: The Theory of Everything is almost exactly replicating the Dallas Buyers run. (Damn you, Focus! Why weren't you this good when I liked your movies?). I'd be stunned if the directors nominated Marsh, but best picture seems all too likely, and Redmayne could be the sloppy-sentimental best actor choice.

I'd guess the Aniston nomination is mostly a result of heavy campaigning combined with the clear lack of enthusiasm for anyone in the fifth slot. Swank seems the big loser, given how well she's done with SAG in the past. Amy Adams of course shrugs off SAG snubs by now -- the Oscars are her turf -- and I'd guess it's down to her and Cotilard for the open spot.

I take the Duvall nod no more seriously than I did yesterday; I think it 's Daniel Bruhl redux. AMPAS has a chance to find someone more interesting.

When there's a totally random acting nomination, you should always look for the hand of Harvey Weinstein. Diane Kruger, meet Naomi Watts. I'd be stunned if this carried forward.

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

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby criddic3 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:36 am

It's still playing in theaters near me, but Amazon is offering the DVD for pre-sale. They don't list the date, but "dvdsreleasedates.com" shows the date as February 17, 2015.
"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)

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

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby flipp525 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:53 am

Naomi Watts is also one of the big winners of the day with two SAG nominations - one for St. Vincent and the other for ensemble in Birdman.

Where would one even see St. Vincent? Is it in that not-in-the-theater-yet-not-on-DVD limbo?
"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
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby criddic3 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:47 am

Must we now have to see Cake and St. Vincent to be SAG compleatists?


"St Vincent" is well worth seeing. I thought, if anyone got nominated for it, Watts would be least likely. She's a lot of fun in the role, but it just didn't strike me as awards-worthy at the time. Too bad Bill Murray has so much competition, but he did make a showing as part of "The Grand Budapest Hotel" ensemble.
"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)

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:43 am

flipp525 wrote:Naomi Watts showing up for St. Vincent was a true WTF moment.


Like Mister Tee taught me, I was going through the alphabet in my mind trying to figure out who was left to nominate. Watts never even crossed my mind!
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

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

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby flipp525 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:41 am

How did that Jennifer Aniston nomination happen?

Naomi Watts showing up for St. Vincent was a true WTF moment.

I wish (as I know others do) that Jake Gyllenhaal had managed to bring Rene Russo along with him. This would've been a huge boost for her Oscar chances.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."



-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: SAG NOMINATIONS

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:30 am

Yet again, the late releases may have been hurt by not getting out to SAG voters. Selma is surprisingly missing, Into the Woods and Unbroken each only get one nomination (both of which could have been voted on sight unseen) while American Sniper and A Most Violent Year are also unnominated.

Since the expansion, only one year have all five Ensemble nominees gone on to get Best Picture nominations. This year looks like it could be a repeat, though. All five of these films seem poised to break through, and could be our five Director nominees too.

SAG always has some surprises, and Naomi Watts certainly acts as that (I have heard no one mention her performance). Jennifer Aniston could be more than just the dark-horse some of us had her as.

Is it possible that Best Supporting Actor is already sealed? These are the five most predictable nominees (something that didn't happen in any other category) and is there anyone else on the horizon who could sneak in? With J.K. Simmons a strong frontrunner, this could become the most dull category of the year.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.


Return to “87th Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests