SAG Nominations

For the films of 2015
Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7221
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby Sabin » Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:35 pm

My predictions:

Best Male Actor in a Leading Role -- Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
Best Female Actor in a Leading Role -- Brie Larson, Room
Best Male Actor in a Supporting Role -- Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies
Best Female Actor in a Supporting Role -- Kate Winset, Steve Jobs
Best Ensemble Cast -- The Big Short
Best Stunt -- Mad Max: Fury Road
"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

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5761
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby flipp525 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:17 am

Woman in Gold indirectly involves the Holocaust/WWII, and that's always bound to get someone nominated, regardless of quality. So I'm not totally surprised by Mirren's nomination there. But, still, there are just so many better candidates this year. (It's a Ryan Reynolds vehicle!!)
"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: 12422
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby OscarGuy » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:43 am

Certain groups get the 3-free months thing. I know that GALECA members get the Netflix memberships, largely because they have both film and TV to review and it's probably easier for them to do that. The same with SAG and probably with HFPA. Emmys are only television, so they don't have a vested interest in giving them full access.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2721
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby criddic3 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:11 am

Sabin wrote:Sure, Jacob Tremblay isn't just a "kid" nominee like Freddie Highmore in Finding Neverland. Didn't Damien mention he wanted to drop that kid down a well? Or was that me?


Well, it looks like SAG was more forward-looking when you consider that Highmore has become quite a good actor, with his adult career doing fairly well with the acclaimed "Bates Motel" series.
"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)

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15381
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:55 am

Netflix also provided free streaming for Emmy voters but access was limited to the TV series they were pushing. It didn't help Jane Fonda.

It helped get Beasts of No Nation out there, but they must have liked it to vote for it. Idris Elba I get, the ensemble nod I don't. Only three actors are nominated including one who is only on screen for a few seconds while other actors with more prominent roles are ignored. I guess it's a union thing, but one would think to qualify for an ensemble award you should have a minimum number of actors in the ensemble, at least five I would think.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6251
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:17 pm

So this Scott Feinberg person is saying that all SAG Nominating Committee folk got three free months of Netflix Streaming. Which MIGHT have helped Beasts of No Nation just a bit.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6251
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:19 pm

The nominating committee is not only a randomly-chosen 2000 people, it's now, post-merger, selected from the combined pool of SAG and AFTRA. As plebeian as SAG voters might be, AFTRA goes much further, including people like local talk show hosts. It's entirely possible this year's 2000 are wildly unrepresentative, in the same way previous year's panels have been eerily on point.

And let's note that, while SAG has often been a great predictor -- for instance, foretelling 19 of 20 actors in 2006 -- there've been fluky off-years in the midst. In 2000 and 2002, the supporting actress category matched AMPAS 4/5. In-between, in 2001, it was a shocking 1/5. Throughout the aughts, Ensemble had never failed to match 3 or 4 of the 5; then, in 2007, it went 1/5. Should we have tried to figure which ludicrous long shot to jam into the best picture race -- Hairspray, 3:10 to Yuma, or America Gangster? (As it was, we all assumed the fourth choice, Into the Wild, was a sure shot, and were foiled even there.) Or was it better to trust our instinct, looking at those titles, that this was just a year that was going to play out differently from the norm?

Remember just two years back, when it was Internet wisdom from October on that all ten lead performances were locked in stone? SAG by itself put a crimp in that, substituting Forest Whitaker for supposed sure-thing Robert Redford -- and then Oscar voters threw out Whitaker plus Hanks for Cooper/DiCaprio, and replaced clear choice Emma Thompson with Amy Adams. They also, in supporting, dropped Bruhl and Gandolfini for Cooper and Hill, and Oprah for Sally Hawkins. That's down to 14 of 20 -- in a year when everyone saw the race as rock-solid. How hard would it be to miss 1-3 more in a year like this, where things have seemed muddled all along?

It's not as if anyone's saying throw out the whole batch. We'd all be shocked if Blanchett/Larson/Ronan didn't repeat on nominations morning, and 3/4/even maybe 5 of the lead actors could repeat (though I think all 5 is unlikely). Supporting actress would be another category with a solid chance of repeating, except for the awkward fact that we aren't sure two of them won't end up slated in lead. Supporting actor seems to me the most mysterious category. Rylance is sure to make it to the Oscar board, and history tells us one or two of the others will, as well, but I have no idea which one or two it might be. Supporting actor has by far the broadest field of contenders -- Ruffalo, Keaton, Stallone, del Toro, Edgerton, Dano just for starters -- and it's fiendishly hard to pinpoint which five will end up the lucky ones. Which is a reason to be deeply interested in the Globe list tomorrow, to see how much they differ from today's SAG list.

And, let me say, there's always a chance what seems a SAG indulgence turns out startlingly prescient. Sarah Silverman and Michael Shannon seem one-offs to me, but so did Demian Bichir. On the other hand, maybe Trumbo's startling three nominations simply make it this year's The Station Agent. It's a month before we'll know. And it's great fun for things to remain this unsettled this deep into the season.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15381
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:45 pm

Let's keep in mind that the SAG nominations, as explained in great detail by Mister Tee several years ago, are voted on by SAG members selected at random. SAG membership is vast. It includes not just working actors but anyone who has ever been given a SAG registration card and kept up his or her dues. Most years the SAG awards reflect the general consensus and are a strong indication of how the Oscars will go. Some years they're completely at odds with the consensus. This year's nominations largely reflect the tastes of older TV viewers who, as I said in my initial post, still revere Bryan Cranston and Helen Mirren for their legendary TV work, Mirren's having been quite a while ago. Let's hope that their nominations are place holders for other, better received performances.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3907
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby ITALIANO » Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:24 pm

I remember that when, months ago, I saw the unbearably schmaltzy, terribly written Woman in Gold, I realized that Mirren wasn't mentioned anywhere as a possible Oscar nominee, and was relieved - that big piece of sugar was, I was sure, too much even for them. And here she is - stealing a spot from actresses who certainly deserved it miore (and I'm not referring only to those unjustly nominated in Support).

Of course, these aren't the Oscars, and it's very possible that Mirren will be denied her nomination by the Academy. But will she be denied BOTH nominations? I'm afraid that one will stay - and I can only hope it will be as Supporting Actress for Trumbo. (No, I haven't seen Trumbo - but she can't be as bad, as predictable, as uninventive in that one as she is in Woman in Gold).

The problems of these SAG awards is that, like it or not (and I often hate it), they more or less mirror the Oscar nominations. I know that there are always differences, but not too many, especially in recent years. Hoping that this year it will suddenly be different is understandable, but maybe a bit naive.

So let's play (I wish I had seen all these movies, but obviously I still haven't).

Of the Best Actor slate, three will certainly stay: Di Caprio, Fassbender and Redmayne. Well, actually, FOUR will stay - but I honestly don't know if the fourth confirmed will be Cranston or (less probably) Depp. But then, more realistically and given the weak alternatives (except Matt Damon), this could exactly be the selection of the Academy.

Best Actress is different. Partly because I still hope that at least one of the two in Supporting will be nominated here by the Academy - most probably Mara. And partly because there ARE strong alternatives - like Rampling. Let's say that only three will appear in the Academy's shortlist - Blanchett, Larson and Ronan. (This, by the way, could be one of the Oscar's best Best Actress races in years - in case these are the changes).

Two of these Best Supporting Actors are sure to repeat at the Oscars - Elba and Rylance. But, of course, there will be at least a third one (Shannon? Tremblay? Both?). Bale could be replaced by someone from Spotlight.

Best Supporting Actress is tricky. If Mara is considered Leading by the Academy - which I hope - there will be one spot available - and it's between Jennifer Jason Leigh and (less probably) Kristen Stewart. The other four should be safe. If a miracle happens and even Vikander goes Leading, Stewart or (less probably) Jane Fonda have a chance.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6251
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:08 pm

The Original BJ wrote:Your point about the female-driven films is compelling, Mister Tee, but I'd also argue that a lot of them didn't have the kind of big casts you'd expect to place in the Ensemble category. Carol and Room, for instance, are two of my very favorite movies of the year, but they're mostly centered around a couple performances, and I don't view their omission in the Ensemble category as a sign of any great weakness. (Brooklyn, though, is a bit more surprising an exclusion -- that seemed like a classic SAG Ensemble pick.

I agree about Room & Carol -- I even mentioned that in my comments in the prediction thread. It just seems odd, in a year where female-centered stories seemed so dominant, for the field to be so male-dominant, maybe more than ever (there were more strong female roles in Birdman than there are in the whole slate this year).

This is a misleading statistic, since it includes films not yet through their runs, but...the only films that got nominations today and made as much as $20 million at the box-office were (of course) Straight Outta Compton, Bridge of Spies, Black Mass and Wonan in Gold. Bridge of Spies is the only one that seemed a sure thing (or is sure to carry over to AMPAS), so, but for flukes, we could be looking at a slate of niche films. This no doubt brings on palpitations from the Oscar producers.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:55 am

I think Tremblay's performance deserves a Best Actor nomination more than any of the actual Best Actor nominees except Michael Fassbender. I'd say he's certainly in the running for Oscar attention alongside a million others, though his is one case where I don't even hope for Oscar to veto the category fraud -- child actors have historically always been demoted when possible, and that's just not the hill I want to die on this year.

Your point about the female-driven films is compelling, Mister Tee, but I'd also argue that a lot of them didn't have the kind of big casts you'd expect to place in the Ensemble category. Carol and Room, for instance, are two of my very favorite movies of the year, but they're mostly centered around a couple performances, and I don't view their omission in the Ensemble category as a sign of any great weakness. (Brooklyn, though, is a bit more surprising an exclusion -- that seemed like a classic SAG Ensemble pick.)

Sarah Bolger was not nominated for an individual SAG Award.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7221
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby Sabin » Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:46 am

Sure, Jacob Tremblay isn't just a "kid" nominee like Freddie Highmore in Finding Neverland. Didn't Damien mention he wanted to drop that kid down a well? Or was that me? Tremblay is incredible. Totally deserving of a nomination. Just not in that category. Thanks to BJ for his appropriate parenthetical usage.

I'd like to say things will come more into focus tomorrow but they will either concur with these batshit nominees or go in a totally different direction so...we've got a race folks!
"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

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby nightwingnova » Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:38 am

They sure love Helen Mirren.

Strange that despite the praise, Paul Dano didn't make it.

Stranger that Rachel McAdams made it but Keaton and Ruffalo didn't. McAdams didn't have anything to do but look interested and emote.
Last edited by nightwingnova on Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:33 am

But Depp wasn't a viable candidate to win, which is what flipp was saying (same with Sarah Bolger/Samantha Morton). Larson's status as a front-runner/strong possibility to win could help bring Tremblay along.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2721
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: SAG Nominations

Postby criddic3 » Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:30 am

None of those had a companion lead performance that is expected to compete
--flipp525

Johnny Depp got an Oscar nod for "Finding Neverland," along with a Best Picture mention, but Highmore was left behind.
"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)


Return to “88th Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests