The Last 2018 Oscar Post: SAG/BAFTA

For the films of 2018
nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: The Last 2018 Oscar Post: SAG/BAFTA

Postby nightwingnova » Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:38 am

As this is the last discussion thread for the recent Oscars and it appears we have nothing else left to say, is this a good time to restart our game? Perhaps even an expedited run-through of the 2018 categories since we've just vetted them?

Honestly, I found this year's competition dull, so personally I think we can easily get 2018 out of the way.

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Last 2018 Oscar Post: SAG/BAFTA

Postby anonymous1980 » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:31 pm

Mister Tee wrote: It's no secret the TV precursors have seemed to spoil Oscar suspense in this millennium, but I've always sort of blamed the Broadcasters most, for their craven desire to be Oscar predictors, and for their seeming ability to set an agenda. That latter may still be an issue, if you think their choices influence SAG voters, some of whom vote mindlessly for perceived front-runners.


I don't know if you know this but, due to the recent merging of AFTRA with SAG, some of the Broadcast Film Critics (those who appear on morning shows and entertainment programs as the resident critic or "Oscar expert") actually are also eligible to vote for SAG so there is an overlap in that arena. Just an FYI.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 16214
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Last 2018 Oscar Post: SAG/BAFTA

Postby Big Magilla » Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:47 pm

We're not quite done with 2018. We still have to do the Best Picture, Acting, Directing and Writing polls which I've been holding off until most, if not all, the nominees are available on home video and/or streaming to give everyone who hasn't seen as much as possible to catch up, which should be by the end of this month.

Then it's back to Cinematography working backwards from 1959, although we can probably start on that later this week.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6793
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

The Last 2018 Oscar Post: SAG/BAFTA

Postby Mister Tee » Sun Mar 10, 2019 4:05 pm

I guess everyone's stopped thinking about this years Oscars -- or anything else, given the paucity of posts -- but I've uncovered something in the past day or so that others may have intuited but I don't think anyone's exactly articulated. And the weird part is, I came to this realization based largely on an anomaly...the exception that proves the rule.

The exception is Regina King's Oscar win this year. She's the first actor to win an Oscar without having been nominated by either SAG or BAFTA since Marcia Gay Harden in 2000 (which is pretty much pre-history, since, until BAFTA's relocation to prior to the Oscars in 2000, correlation between BAFTA and the Oscars was hit-and-miss). Bravo to King; I love anything that defies precursors. But the fact that her win is so anomalous reinforces the fact that, to have a shot at winning the Oscar in all but exceptional circumstances, one or the other of SAG/BAFTA nomination is a necessity,

That's as far as I thought it went. But when I checked through the history, I found the correlation is not just to nomination, but to WINNING. Do you know the last person to win an Oscar without winning at either SAG or BAFTA? George Clooney in 2005 (SAG went to Paul Giammatti, BAFTA to Jake Gyllenhaal). That's 13 straight years -- until Ms. KIng -- where every single Oscar winner came into the ceremony with either a SAG or BAFTA win. The last such stat-defying lead category winner was Sean Penn in 2003 (Depp won SAG, Bill Murray BAFTA).

You might think that SAG was doing the heavy lifting on that stat, but I find, to my own surprise, it's not the case. There are 11 instances where actors won at SAG without winning BAFTA and went on to be the Academy's choice -- a few where BAFTA hadn't even nominated them (Bullock '09, Leo '10, McConaughey and Leto '13), the rest where there was just difference of opinion (Penn '08, Bridges '09, Bale '10, Lawrence '12, Nyong'o '13, Vikander '15, Ali '16). But there were almost as many cases where BAFTA identified the winner over SAG's choice: Arkin '06, Cotillard and Swinton '07, Cruz '08 (because of the category shift, yes -- but it's worth note BAFTA pre-figured AMPAS that year while SAG went its merry way), Streep '11, Waltz '12, Rylance '15, Affleck '16, and of course Colman two weeks ago. That's more than enough instances of BAFTA anticipating the Academy choice over SAG that we shouldn't take an automatic stance that BAFTA is a bunch of foreigners voting strangely, and SAG is always the way to go.

From this collection of stats, you can also conclude that people who win BOTH SAG and BAFTA are pretty much locks. Over 30 people in those years post-Clooney have won both SAG and BAFTA, and every single one has gone on to win the Oscar. The last time someone failed to cash in was 2002, when both Daniel Day-Lewis in lead and Christopher Walken in support lost at AMPAS after triumphing at both SAG and BAFTA. (That was also another year when BAFTA ruled over SAG in a disagreement: BAFTA's choice of NIcole Kidman besting SAG's Renee Zellweger.) Russell Crowe similarly failed despite winning the double in 2001 -- though there, as with the Globe, Crowe hadn't won the year before the way he had at AMPAS, which almost certainly affected the Oscar outcome. And before that is the murky swamp of pre-history (including 2000 best actor, where neither SAG's Benicio del Toro nor BAFTA's Jamie Bell were nominated in the category at AMPAS).

Bottom-ish line? It's no secret the TV precursors have seemed to spoil Oscar suspense in this millennium, but I've always sort of blamed the Broadcasters most, for their craven desire to be Oscar predictors, and for their seeming ability to set an agenda. That latter may still be an issue, if you think their choices influence SAG voters, some of whom vote mindlessly for perceived front-runners. But it may be that the Broadcasters and Globes are extraneous to the win formula; that, based on these results, it all comes down to SAG/BAFTA -- anyone who wins both wins the Oscar; if they split, one of the two will win, and it's pretty even odds which.

Unless, of course, there's another Regina King -- something for which I always fervently hope.


Return to “91st Academy Awards”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest