|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 19, 2024 3:05:55 GMT
Gladstone missed because she’s supporting in her film. Supporting campaigning for lead almost never wins. Wasn’t an issue for Olivia Colman
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 19, 2024 3:33:04 GMT
Gladstone missed because she’s supporting in her film. Supporting campaigning for lead almost never wins. Wasn’t an issue for Olivia Colman Colman is co-lead with Weisz and Stone. Weisz and Stone were the category frauds. DiCaprio is the sole lead in KotFM.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 19, 2024 3:37:20 GMT
Wasn’t an issue for Olivia Colman Colman is co-lead with Weisz and Stone. Weisz and Stone were the category frauds. DiCaprio is the sole lead in KotFM. Disagree
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jan 19, 2024 5:41:49 GMT
Stone has a previous and quite recent win in her disfavour Idk how much that really matters with the Academy these days. DDL, Waltz, Ali, and McDormand all won successive Oscars within a few years of their previous, all doing it faster than Stone would. If there's no clear alternative, the Academy doesn't mind re-upping a recent winner.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 19, 2024 6:32:55 GMT
Totally different. The Gladstone backlash is for a much more specific reason than just 'film twitter likes her'. What is the specific reason - considering in this case Scorsese and DiCaprio were also snubbed. Stewart and Mulligan were the early front runners. When Stewart bombed at SAG and BAFTA, and Mulligan at BAFTA, Film Twitter insisted there was going to be a backlash that propelled them to Oscar wins. We all know how that turned out. She's a POC.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jan 19, 2024 10:45:51 GMT
Boy, you sure change your tune quickly. All because of BAFTA? Phhft, BAFTA is literally the WORST Oscar harbinger in the last 10 years. SAG and the rest of the guilds are much more important. I'm rooting for Stone, it's the performance if the year imo, but it's very much a horse-race between her and Gladstone. Lets be clear on a few things here:
1. Jessica Chastain, Sandra Bullock, and Hilary Swank are the only actresses to win Oscar, but without a BAFTA nomination. I am referring to the years when the BAFTAs came before the Oscars. Chastain won the Oscar, when none of the BAFTA nominees failed to make the Oscar list. Bullock and Swank had screener issues. Theron and Berry were nominated in the next calendar season. Gladstone missing here is a big deal.
2. I am not saying it is impossible for Gladstone to win the Oscar. But it is indeed a hurdle. If the Guilds go crazy for KOTFM, Gladstone would be a smart pick.
3. No where am I changing "my tune". When facts change, so does my opinion. That should be true for everybody.
I disagree with you because bear in mind, the BAFTAs of today aren't the BAFTAs they used to be due to this recent, weird new system. I think the Chastain situation where none of the nominees matched is actually an indication of that. So I'm not leaning heavily on the history anymore. Years ago, I might have made it a bigger deal.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 19, 2024 11:13:22 GMT
Lets be clear on a few things here:
1. Jessica Chastain, Sandra Bullock, and Hilary Swank are the only actresses to win Oscar, but without a BAFTA nomination. I am referring to the years when the BAFTAs came before the Oscars. Chastain won the Oscar, when none of the BAFTA nominees failed to make the Oscar list. Bullock and Swank had screener issues. Theron and Berry were nominated in the next calendar season. Gladstone missing here is a big deal.
2. I am not saying it is impossible for Gladstone to win the Oscar. But it is indeed a hurdle. If the Guilds go crazy for KOTFM, Gladstone would be a smart pick.
3. No where am I changing "my tune". When facts change, so does my opinion. That should be true for everybody.
I disagree with you because bear in mind, the BAFTAs of today aren't the BAFTAs they used to be due to this recent, weird new system. I think the Chastain situation just last year where none of the nominees matched is actually an indication of that. So I'm not leaning heavily on the history anymore. Years ago, I might have made it a bigger deal. You cannot logically disagree with a fact. I am not saying it is improbable or impossible, but it does indeed create a hurdle. Back in 2021, I heard that same argument for Carey Mulligan and Promising Young Woman. "Forget about that weird jury system. It's going to be Mulligan over McDormand and Davis." Just pointing out the reality of the situation. You're free to make excuses, but that doesn't dilute the reality of the situation.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Jan 19, 2024 15:58:30 GMT
What is the specific reason - considering in this case Scorsese and DiCaprio were also snubbed. Stewart and Mulligan were the early front runners. When Stewart bombed at SAG and BAFTA, and Mulligan at BAFTA, Film Twitter insisted there was going to be a backlash that propelled them to Oscar wins. We all know how that turned out. She's a POC. The problem could be that the film may not be resonating with voters. It happens. It wasn't just Gladstone, it was snubbed for Director, Adapted Screenplay at BAFTA - which should have been easy nods. It had already miss Actor with SAG - which could have been a Red Flag.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 19, 2024 16:03:55 GMT
I just think whoever wins SAG takes the Oscar. In a close race the last awards show before the Oscar’s is the deal breaker often. This year it is SAG. I’m not really commenting on anybody’s win chances with confidence until after SAG.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 19, 2024 16:05:58 GMT
Boy, you sure change your tune quickly. All because of BAFTA? Phhft, BAFTA is literally the WORST Oscar harbinger in the last 10 years. SAG and the rest of the guilds are much more important. I'm rooting for Stone, it's the performance if the year imo, but it's very much a horse-race between her and Gladstone. Lets be clear on a few things here:
1. Jessica Chastain, Sandra Bullock, and Hilary Swank are the only actresses to win Oscar, but without a BAFTA nomination. I am referring to the years when the BAFTAs came before the Oscars. Chastain won the Oscar, when none of the BAFTA nominees failed to make the Oscar list. Bullock and Swank had screener issues. Theron and Berry were nominated in the next calendar season. Gladstone missing here is a big deal.
2. I am not saying it is impossible for Gladstone to win the Oscar. But it is indeed a hurdle. If the Guilds go crazy for KOTFM, Gladstone would be a smart pick.
3. No where am I changing "my tune". When facts change, so does my opinion. That should be true for everybody.
You have to throw out every pre jury year though if you are doing this based on stats. We have a very small sample size to work with.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 19, 2024 16:10:07 GMT
I just think whoever wins SAG takes the Oscar. In a close race the last awards show before the Oscar’s is the deal breaker often. This year it is SAG. I’m not really commenting on anybody’s win chances with confidence until after SAG. I'd agree with this. For the longest time, BAFTA had the last say and we saw split races come out with BAFTA overwhelmingly favoured, but last year SAG was the last awards show and they went 4/4 with Oscar while BAFTA blanked. That said, it is troubling for Gladstone's chances that she wasn't top three. Stone we assume was #1 and I'd bet Huller and Robbie were #2 and #3 judging by the former's film's overperformance and the latter just being generally beloved by BAFTA (six nominations as of this writing), but still: the jury could've saved Gladstone and opted not to. Part of it could be BAFTA's latent bias, but I do wonder if the film itself is losing a lot of steam and passion that it had at the outset, and Gladstone's performance isn't exactly flashy. It's an extremely atypical performance to win as it is, especially when her closest competition is unbelievably showy and has a much more dominant showing in her film. SAG will tell the tale, but the more I think on it, the more I think Stone might still have the (slight) advantage there. Gladstone may have given a phenomenal speech at the Globes but so did Emma and she is clearly revered by her peers.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 19, 2024 16:28:45 GMT
I disagree with you because bear in mind, the BAFTAs of today aren't the BAFTAs they used to be due to this recent, weird new system. I think the Chastain situation just last year where none of the nominees matched is actually an indication of that. So I'm not leaning heavily on the history anymore. Years ago, I might have made it a bigger deal. You cannot logically disagree with a fact. I am not saying it is improbable or impossible, but it does indeed create a hurdle. Back in 2021, I heard that same argument for Carey Mulligan and Promising Young Woman. "Forget about that weird jury system. It's going to be Mulligan over McDormand and Davis." Just pointing out the reality of the situation. You're free to make excuses, but that doesn't dilute the reality of the situation. The fact that none of them were nominated that year just showed how wide the gap between the tastes of the Bafta and Academy might be.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 19, 2024 16:31:04 GMT
I just think whoever wins SAG takes the Oscar. In a close race the last awards show before the Oscar’s is the deal breaker often. This year it is SAG. I’m not really commenting on anybody’s win chances with confidence until after SAG. I'd agree with this. For the longest time, BAFTA had the last say and we saw split races come out with BAFTA overwhelmingly favoured, but last year SAG was the last awards show and they went 4/4 with Oscar while BAFTA blanked. That said, it is troubling for Gladstone's chances that she wasn't top three. Stone we assume was #1 and I'd bet Huller and Robbie were #2 and #3 judging by the former's film's overperformance and the latter just being generally beloved by BAFTA (six nominations as of this writing), but still: the jury could've saved Gladstone and opted not to. Part of it could be BAFTA's latent bias, but I do wonder if the film itself is losing a lot of steam and passion that it had at the outset, and Gladstone's performance isn't exactly flashy. It's an extremely atypical performance to win as it is, especially when her closest competition is unbelievably showy and has a much more dominant showing in her film. SAG will tell the tale, but the more I think on it, the more I think Stone might still have the (slight) advantage there. Gladstone may have given a phenomenal speech at the Globes but so did Emma and she is clearly revered by her peers. I’m not completely sure Huller isn’t number 1 at Bafta to be honest. Gladstone not being too 3 here is a thing for sure. I don’t really care about the jury though. I just don’t think we can make proclamations until sag.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 19, 2024 16:40:24 GMT
I'd agree with this. For the longest time, BAFTA had the last say and we saw split races come out with BAFTA overwhelmingly favoured, but last year SAG was the last awards show and they went 4/4 with Oscar while BAFTA blanked. That said, it is troubling for Gladstone's chances that she wasn't top three. Stone we assume was #1 and I'd bet Huller and Robbie were #2 and #3 judging by the former's film's overperformance and the latter just being generally beloved by BAFTA (six nominations as of this writing), but still: the jury could've saved Gladstone and opted not to. Part of it could be BAFTA's latent bias, but I do wonder if the film itself is losing a lot of steam and passion that it had at the outset, and Gladstone's performance isn't exactly flashy. It's an extremely atypical performance to win as it is, especially when her closest competition is unbelievably showy and has a much more dominant showing in her film. SAG will tell the tale, but the more I think on it, the more I think Stone might still have the (slight) advantage there. Gladstone may have given a phenomenal speech at the Globes but so did Emma and she is clearly revered by her peers. I’m not completely sure Huller isn’t number 1 at Bafta to be honest. Gladstone not being too 3 here is a thing for sure. I don’t really care about the jury though. I just don’t think we can make proclamations until sag. I mean, we still can make some educated guesses here on trends and tastes. Payne and The Holdovers are much stronger than people seemed to anticipate with the BAFTA bloc, for example. And if they went that hard for it, there's a very real chance Giamatti could upset Best Actor even over there against Murphy (as Butler did against presumed favourite Farrell). It's by no means definitive, but I don't think BAFTA can be straight-up ignored just because they have a janky nomination process.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 19, 2024 16:44:35 GMT
I’m not completely sure Huller isn’t number 1 at Bafta to be honest. Gladstone not being too 3 here is a thing for sure. I don’t really care about the jury though. I just don’t think we can make proclamations until sag. I mean, we still can make some educated guesses here on trends and tastes. Payne and The Holdovers are much stronger than people seemed to anticipate with the BAFTA bloc, for example. And if they went that hard for it, there's a very real chance Giamatti could upset Best Actor even over there against Murphy (as Butler did against presumed favourite Farrell). It's by no means definitive, but I don't think BAFTA can be straight-up ignored just because they have a janky nomination process. I didn’t say completely ignore but obvious jury choices can be pretty much ignored. As for Payne as you know I was already predicting him. I think The Holdovers BP nom is more telling than his BD nod. Its overall showing tells me he would have been nominated under the old system. Giamatti was totally top 3.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 19, 2024 17:23:51 GMT
Lets be clear on a few things here:
1. Jessica Chastain, Sandra Bullock, and Hilary Swank are the only actresses to win Oscar, but without a BAFTA nomination. I am referring to the years when the BAFTAs came before the Oscars. Chastain won the Oscar, when none of the BAFTA nominees failed to make the Oscar list. Bullock and Swank had screener issues. Theron and Berry were nominated in the next calendar season. Gladstone missing here is a big deal.
2. I am not saying it is impossible for Gladstone to win the Oscar. But it is indeed a hurdle. If the Guilds go crazy for KOTFM, Gladstone would be a smart pick.
3. No where am I changing "my tune". When facts change, so does my opinion. That should be true for everybody.
You have to throw out every pre jury year though if you are doing this based on stats. We have a very small sample size to work with. I heard this same story for Mulligan. Don’t believe McDormand is winning, jury screwed over Mulligan.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 19, 2024 17:35:34 GMT
You have to throw out every pre jury year though if you are doing this based on stats. We have a very small sample size to work with. I heard this same story for Mulligan. Don’t believe McDormand is winning, jury screwed over Mulligan. You going to base every best actress race off of one other year.
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Jan 19, 2024 18:44:33 GMT
Stone has a previous and quite recent win in her disfavour Idk how much that really matters with the Academy these days. DDL, Waltz, Ali, and McDormand all won successive Oscars within a few years of their previous, all doing it faster than Stone would. If there's no clear alternative, the Academy doesn't mind re-upping a recent winner. DDL and McDormand are seasoned veterans; Waltz and Ali won in supporting. I'm not saying it's totally off the table for Stone to win, but looking at the stats, a second win in the lead category is not an easy feat for someone in her position. The closest comparison I can draw would be Swank in '99 and '04, but even with that, Swank benefited from a perfectly-timed--almost flukey--push behind MDB. Poor Things is doing well, but it's not garnering the same kind of passion.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Jan 19, 2024 19:17:18 GMT
Ugh! Tuesday cannot come soon enough. Usually all the amateur speculating, overreacting, stubbornness, and NGNG predictions about who would or wouldn't get in, and what precursors matter or don't matter and how much they matter, is just par the course, but this year it's just been fucking insufferable to me. Maybe it's because the contenders this year are more polarizing? Or maybe it's because people are letting their personal opinions of a contender cloud their judgement about their chances? Or maybe it's just how I'm personally feeling at this time. I honestly don't know. But I'm not enjoying it, and while I know once the noms come out there's still more than a month of people overreacting and/or overanalyzing and just plain arguing about how every potential Oscar winner "frontrunner" is affected by whatever the BAFTA and SAG results are, the worst of the hand-wringing is over the nods, and that mercifully will END in less than 4 days.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jan 19, 2024 19:47:13 GMT
I disagree with you because bear in mind, the BAFTAs of today aren't the BAFTAs they used to be due to this recent, weird new system. I think the Chastain situation just last year where none of the nominees matched is actually an indication of that. So I'm not leaning heavily on the history anymore. Years ago, I might have made it a bigger deal. You cannot logically disagree with a fact. I am not saying it is improbable or impossible, but it does indeed create a hurdle. Back in 2021, I heard that same argument for Carey Mulligan and Promising Young Woman. "Forget about that weird jury system. It's going to be Mulligan over McDormand and Davis." Just pointing out the reality of the situation. You're free to make excuses, but that doesn't dilute the reality of the situation. Where did I disagree with a fact? You believe the omission this year is a bigger deal than I do. That would fall under 'The subjective things award season buffs love to chatter about'. You're talking about 2021 as a way to make the voting changes matter less, but what about the next year? Everyone missed at BAFTA and that is a fact. Dismiss it as an excuse, but I take that as a sign that the BAFTAs aren't exactly at present the most reliable awards body for the Oscar race (and note: they have made changes again since 2021). If people were to look at the BAFTA nominees and the Oscar nominees in the category from that year, they couldn't even draw a single connection. Now that may not mean anything to you, and that's fine. But it means something to me, so I simply don't have the same amount of faith in them that you do. That's all. For me, Gladstone vs Stone at this time. SAG will be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 19, 2024 19:49:22 GMT
You cannot logically disagree with a fact. I am not saying it is improbable or impossible, but it does indeed create a hurdle. Back in 2021, I heard that same argument for Carey Mulligan and Promising Young Woman. "Forget about that weird jury system. It's going to be Mulligan over McDormand and Davis." Just pointing out the reality of the situation. You're free to make excuses, but that doesn't dilute the reality of the situation. Where did I disagree with a fact? You believe the omission this year is a bigger deal than I do. That would fall under 'The subjective things award season buffs love to chatter about'. You're talking about 2021 as a way to make the voting changes matter less, but what about last year? Everyone missed at BAFTA and that is a fact. Dismiss it as an excuse, but I take that as a sign that the BAFTAs aren't exactly at present the most reliable awards body for the Oscar race (and note: they have made changes again since 2021). If people were to look at the BAFTA nominees and the Oscar nominees in the category from last year, they couldn't even draw a single connection. Now that may not mean anything to you, and that's fine. But it means something to me, so I simply don't have the same amount of faith in them that you do. That's all. For me, Gladstone vs Stone at this time. SAG will be interesting. If everybody missed, then the stat doesn’t apply.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Jan 19, 2024 20:42:55 GMT
Where did I disagree with a fact? You believe the omission this year is a bigger deal than I do. That would fall under 'The subjective things award season buffs love to chatter about'. You're talking about 2021 as a way to make the voting changes matter less, but what about last year? Everyone missed at BAFTA and that is a fact. Dismiss it as an excuse, but I take that as a sign that the BAFTAs aren't exactly at present the most reliable awards body for the Oscar race (and note: they have made changes again since 2021). If people were to look at the BAFTA nominees and the Oscar nominees in the category from last year, they couldn't even draw a single connection. Now that may not mean anything to you, and that's fine. But it means something to me, so I simply don't have the same amount of faith in them that you do. That's all. For me, Gladstone vs Stone at this time. SAG will be interesting. If everybody missed, then the stat doesn’t apply. So it doesn't apply at all in a discussion about 2020s BAFTAs reliability in the Oscar race? That sounds a bit weird to me, but okay, you can have that. I agree with River's post.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 19, 2024 22:07:39 GMT
Where did I disagree with a fact? You believe the omission this year is a bigger deal than I do. That would fall under 'The subjective things award season buffs love to chatter about'. You're talking about 2021 as a way to make the voting changes matter less, but what about last year? Everyone missed at BAFTA and that is a fact. Dismiss it as an excuse, but I take that as a sign that the BAFTAs aren't exactly at present the most reliable awards body for the Oscar race (and note: they have made changes again since 2021). If people were to look at the BAFTA nominees and the Oscar nominees in the category from last year, they couldn't even draw a single connection. Now that may not mean anything to you, and that's fine. But it means something to me, so I simply don't have the same amount of faith in them that you do. That's all. For me, Gladstone vs Stone at this time. SAG will be interesting. If everybody missed, then the stat doesn’t apply. It just doesn’t fit your narrative. It still applies when analyzing Bafta’s influence as a precursor under their new jury system.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 19, 2024 22:17:13 GMT
The problem could be that the film may not be resonating with voters. It happens. It wasn't just Gladstone, it was snubbed for Director, Adapted Screenplay at BAFTA - which should have been easy nods. It had already miss Actor with SAG - which could have been a Red Flag. I'm not saying that's the reason she got snubbed. I'm saying that's one of the reasons her snub is facing more backlash than Leo or Marty missing. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 19, 2024 23:53:09 GMT
It just doesn’t fit your narrative. It still applies when analyzing Bafta’s influence as a precursor under their new jury system. What is my narrative? I am not saying Gladstone cannot win. The problem with the 2021-2022 Best Actress race is that none of the BAFTA nominees were up for the Oscar. That makes it a non-factor. We have in 2023-2024, a situation where we could have Robbie, Mulligan, Stone, Huller and maybe even Barrino up for the Oscar.
|
|