|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 23, 2019 1:07:25 GMT
Think about it.
It was nominated for all the major guilds.
Along with Vice and The Favourite, the only film nominated for director, screenplay, and editing.
You could argue, Well The Shape of Water and Braveheart wasn't nominated for all of the major guilds. True, but they were nominated for all the major Oscar nominations.
You could argue that Birdman and Argo were missing a major Oscar nomination (editing and directing), but all of them swept the PGA, DGA, and SAGE awards.
You could bring up Driving Miss Daisy. That didn't score a DGA nomination, and missed out on a directing nomination. Perhaps that could signal Green Book winning.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 23, 2019 1:11:32 GMT
From a guild perspective, yes. However, guilds tend to skew much more basic and mainstream than the Oscars by virtue of each guild having a much larger demographic, and a film hitting every single guild doesn't necessarily mean it's going to mirror what the Academy does.
My reasoning has always been this: if a film misses something like SAG or DGA but makes the Oscar lineup, they're an unknown quantity, especially if they over-perform with nominations or if another guild/branch/organization made up for the discrepancy (i.e. The Favourite missing DGA/SAG Ensemble but Lanthimos made BAFTA/Oscar, and BAFTA went really hard for it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 23, 2019 1:13:42 GMT
Trends don’t mean nothin’ ‘round these parts no more.
|
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 23, 2019 1:15:16 GMT
I haven't decided yet but I'm not picking Roma.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 23, 2019 1:16:14 GMT
The short answer is No. The longer answer is Fuck No. Look aside from me not liking the film much (I did like the first hour though), people are deluding themselves - aside from it not being good enough - it has won nothing, it is a runner up in all the major guilds. Roma has won almost everything anyway, and what it hasn't won, Blackkklansman ain't stolen its thunder. Editing won't matter this year and besides that no one much likes it - it isn't the populist Green Book and it's a divisive film - now clearly not THAT divisive because it did get nominations love - but in this year there's absolutely no reason to vote for it - it's not the Art pick, it's not the populist pick even within its subject matter. I think Screenplay (which is awful) is it's chance for its biggest prize. Look I'm not a fan but I'll give it props for its nominations and that's something, but to win?  |
|
|
|
Post by bruinjoe96 on Jan 23, 2019 1:22:13 GMT
No, it's done well at the guilds, but what has it won? Maybe it'll win WGA and SAG (although I'm doubting SAG for I have it 3rd behind Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody).
I say it's between Roma and Green Book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 23, 2019 1:22:31 GMT
Trends don’t mean nothin’ ‘round these parts no more. What do you mean precisely? You cannot really point out "Well The Shape of Water". |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 23, 2019 1:24:55 GMT
No, it's done well at the guilds, but what has it won? Maybe it'll win WGA and SAG (although I'm doubting SAG for I have it 3rd behind Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody). I say it's between Roma and Green Book. Despite no SAGE AND failing to win the directing, writing, and screenplay nominations? Now I get that if BlacKkKlansman missing out on the DGA, SAGE, and WGA, then it's not the front-runner anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 23, 2019 1:30:50 GMT
No, it's done well at the guilds, but what has it won? Maybe it'll win WGA and SAG (although I'm doubting SAG for I have it 3rd behind Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody). I say it's between Roma and Green Book. Despite no SAGE AND failing to win the directing, writing, and screenplay nominations? Now I get that if BlacKkKlansman missing out on the DGA, SAGE, and WGA, then it's not the front-runner anymore. I don't think SAG matters this year. If I had to pick now, I'm going with The Favourite. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 23, 2019 1:32:14 GMT
Trends don’t mean nothin’ ‘round these parts no more. What do you mean precisely? You cannot really point out "Well The Shape of Water". The Shape of Water Plus Moonlight Plus Spotlight Plus Birdman All of them had hindrances and handicaps that by traditional logic, should have put them out of the race. Lack of SAG for Shape, Spotlight lost PGA and only won one other trophy, Birdman missed Editing, and even Moonlight was seen as the bridesmaid to that season’s runaway victor. Stats are becoming less of an indicator recently, so the way is still very much open for Roma or Green Book to take it. |
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 23, 2019 1:36:50 GMT
Just based off the overwhelming Roma support including two major noms with no precursors, I think would be my bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 23, 2019 2:07:46 GMT
What do you mean precisely? You cannot really point out "Well The Shape of Water". The Shape of Water Plus Moonlight Plus Spotlight Plus Birdman All of them had hindrances and handicaps that by traditional logic, should have put them out of the race. TSOW was nominated for director, screenplay, and editing. It won the PGA and DGA. No other Best Picture contender was either lacking in the Guild side or the Oscar nominations side. Moonlight was nominated for the PGA, DGA, SAGE, WGA and scored Picture, Director, Screenplay, and Editing nominations. Ditto for Spotlight. Birdman was nominated for all the major guilds, except for the WGA, which it wasn't eligible for. I don't think you get my point. None of them had hindrances both on the Guild and Oscar side. |
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557 
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Jan 23, 2019 2:30:46 GMT
Once again: nobody shapes their ballots based on stats and precursor history. No Oscar voter keeps tabs on that stuff. No one's changing how they're ranking their ballots based on what film got what nomination. Hell, voters don't even have to vote for the same people at every awards show: awards season is so damn long that passions change and tastes evolve as the months go by, leaving an opening for different winners at different shows.
Precursors are only relevant because they allow us to gauge which films have support with which groups, but they don't make anything or anyone ineligible and they don't tell the whole story on their own. Roma's SAG shut-out was relevant to the conversation because it seemed (on the surface) to indicate that it might lack passion among the acting branch, which is the largest in the Academy. But then the Oscar nominations roll out and not only is Aparicio able to sneak in, Marina de Tavira also makes history by cracking a highly competitive lineup and snatching the #5 slot right from under the noses of four viable, well-liked, English-speaking actresses, and she does it without a single nomination even from the smallest regional critics group. She had nothing to back up her narrative. Nada. She has exactly 1 nomination for Roma to her credit on IMDB, and that's from the Academy.
Just like that, the SAG shutout was instantly rendered completely irrelevant, because clearly the actors DO love the film just as much as the writers, producers and directors who gave it WGA, PGA and DGA nominations do.
Unless BlacKkKlansman wins SAG Ensemble, I don't think there's any reason to expect it to win BP. Not because it's statistically unlikely based on previous results, but because it doesn't have as much avid passion behind it as Roma does. I *could* conceive of a Spotlight-type path for it to emerge as the timely, agreeable consensus pick that triumphs on a preferential ballot, but Spotlight was up against divisive, unorthodox frontrunners that turned a lot of people off and couldn't be agreed upon, while Roma's overperformance today shows it's pretty universally adored. Being ranked #2 and #3 on a lot of ballots doesn't help much when the consensus frontrunner has just as many #1 votes without a sizeable contingent of detractors.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Jan 23, 2019 3:21:47 GMT
I should’ve known better because I was also predicting Blackkklansman to win but it really need to show more passion today, the actors needed to be behind this film but only Driver was able to get it, last year the SAG stat fell apart, the love was there with 3 acting noms for Shape of Water, this year Roma has that. Overall, in this particular year I would say that a few precursors omissions are not as important as they use to be, for example, Regina King has a good chance at winning, even with Bafta/Sag snubs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jan 23, 2019 3:42:06 GMT
I still think it's winning. If it wins SAG it has a decent shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Jan 23, 2019 8:40:37 GMT
I think it has a chance, but I wouldn't call it the favourite right now. Let's see how it does with WGA and DGA. I think a win would be a strong indicator. But so far it seems to lack the passion. Not only with the guilds, but also with the critics. What tells us, that people don't seem to love it that much.
Zeb31 pointed out, why the SAG doesn't mean that much this year. Roma still managed to get two acting nominations, which shows that actors liked the performaces. Though I still think that acting nominations are not even THAT important, but in this case the nods just showed that even in a branch, where it seemed as first that it wouldn't get much support, there are enough people that like it a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jan 23, 2019 8:51:57 GMT
Trends don’t mean nothin’ ‘round these parts no more. Finally!! |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 23, 2019 11:22:23 GMT
Once again: nobody shapes their ballots based on stats and precursor history. No Oscar voter keeps tabs on that stuff...Precursors are only relevant because they allow us to gauge which films have support with which groups, but they don't make anything or anyone ineligible and they don't tell the whole story on their own. Roma's SAG shut-out was relevant to the conversation because it seemed (on the surface) to indicate that it might lack passion among the acting branch, which is the largest in the Academy. But then the Oscar nominations roll out and not only is Aparicio able to sneak in, Marina de Tavira also makes history by cracking a highly competitive lineup and snatching the #5 slot right from under the noses of four viable, well-liked, English-speaking actresses, and she does it without a single nomination even from the smallest regional critics group. She had nothing to back up her narrative. Nada. She has exactly 1 nomination for Roma to her credit on IMDB, and that's from the Academy. Just like that, the SAG shutout was instantly rendered completely irrelevant, because clearly the actors DO love the film just as much as the writers, producers and directors who gave it WGA, PGA and DGA nominations do. Unless BlacKkKlansman wins SAG Ensemble, I don't think there's any reason to expect it to win BP. Not because it's statistically unlikely based on previous results, but because it doesn't have as much avid passion behind it as Roma does. I *could* conceive of a Spotlight-type path for it to emerge as the timely, agreeable consensus pick that triumphs on a preferential ballot, but Spotlight was up against divisive, unorthodox frontrunners that turned a lot of people off and couldn't be agreed upon, while Roma's overperformance today shows it's pretty universally adored. Being ranked #2 and #3 on a lot of ballots doesn't help much when the consensus frontrunner has just as many #1 votes without a sizeable contingent of detractors. First off, I never said or implied that the Academy voters keeps a tab sheet, and votes based on who got nominated/won in the other awards. They vote based on what they like. My point on these boards has to do with probability and seeing the pulse from people who likely vote on the Oscars. When I talk about the Golden Globes and Critics Choice awards, I am in no shape implying that these guys vote on the Oscars. What is TRUE is that Critics Choice and Globe members taste in film and performances align pretty close to the Academy's tastes. Marina de Tavira was indeed the biggest surprise, along with Buster for adapted screenplay. I struggle to find any critics circle, critics choice, guild, globe, or satellite nomination for her. Good for her. But then again, I don't see this as an example of "Roma" being the front-runner. Keep in mind that Jacki Weaver was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for Silver Linings Playbook, and SLP didn't win Best Picture, nor did it win Director or Screenplay. More importantly, Roma "gained" in the acting categories, but "lost" in the editing category. The ACE, Critics Choice, and BAFTA all nominated it for editing, but it lost out to Green Book and BlacKkKlansman, two films which receive ZERO Critics Choice and BAFTA attention. The biggest thing going against BKKM is the complete silence among the big boy awards. Golden Globes? Nothing. Critics Choice? Nothing. The Guilds and the BAFTAs can change that perception. And fully agree that if BKKM continues to get nominated for their big prestigious awards but goes silent once again, it's over. Spotlight is not a good example of bucking the trend. The Revenant was seen by some/many of being the Best Picture winner, but it lacked a SAGE, WGA (it was eligible), and a screenplay nomination. Spotlight was nominated for all the major Oscars and all the major Guilds. Spotlight got in because it was a more well-balanced film. The Revenant only had the DGA win, Spotlight had the SAGE and WGA wins. Since 2000, there has only been two films to win Best Picture without a directing, writing, and editing nomination, and that was Birdman and Argo. Birdman won the PGA, DGA, and SAGE. Argo won everything: PGA, DGA, SAGE, and WGA. Missing a major Oscar nomination is without a doubt relevant and shouldn't be counted out. It has to make up in other areas or be the least damaged film out there. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Jan 23, 2019 11:37:17 GMT
Once again: nobody shapes their ballots based on stats and precursor history. No Oscar voter keeps tabs on that stuff...Precursors are only relevant because they allow us to gauge which films have support with which groups, but they don't make anything or anyone ineligible and they don't tell the whole story on their own. Roma's SAG shut-out was relevant to the conversation because it seemed (on the surface) to indicate that it might lack passion among the acting branch, which is the largest in the Academy. But then the Oscar nominations roll out and not only is Aparicio able to sneak in, Marina de Tavira also makes history by cracking a highly competitive lineup and snatching the #5 slot right from under the noses of four viable, well-liked, English-speaking actresses, and she does it without a single nomination even from the smallest regional critics group. She had nothing to back up her narrative. Nada. She has exactly 1 nomination for Roma to her credit on IMDB, and that's from the Academy. Just like that, the SAG shutout was instantly rendered completely irrelevant, because clearly the actors DO love the film just as much as the writers, producers and directors who gave it WGA, PGA and DGA nominations do. Unless BlacKkKlansman wins SAG Ensemble, I don't think there's any reason to expect it to win BP. Not because it's statistically unlikely based on previous results, but because it doesn't have as much avid passion behind it as Roma does. I *could* conceive of a Spotlight-type path for it to emerge as the timely, agreeable consensus pick that triumphs on a preferential ballot, but Spotlight was up against divisive, unorthodox frontrunners that turned a lot of people off and couldn't be agreed upon, while Roma's overperformance today shows it's pretty universally adored. Being ranked #2 and #3 on a lot of ballots doesn't help much when the consensus frontrunner has just as many #1 votes without a sizeable contingent of detractors. Since 2000, there has only been two films to win Best Picture without a directing, writing, and editing nomination, and that was Birdman and Argo. Birdman won the PGA, DGA, and SAGE. Argo won everything: PGA, DGA, SAGE, and WGA. Missing a major Oscar nomination is without a doubt relevant and shouldn't be counted out. It has to make up in other areas or be the least damaged film out there. You could even argue that the miss for Argo was just due to voters assuming Affleck was safe, what I still believe, though obviously we will never know. And Birdman with it's "lack" of editing made sense in that category.
In that regard Roma's snub is indeed more worrying and would strengthen the case of BlacKkKlansman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 23, 2019 11:54:15 GMT
Since 2000, there has only been two films to win Best Picture without a directing, writing, and editing nomination, and that was Birdman and Argo. Birdman won the PGA, DGA, and SAGE. Argo won everything: PGA, DGA, SAGE, and WGA. Missing a major Oscar nomination is without a doubt relevant and shouldn't be counted out. It has to make up in other areas or be the least damaged film out there. You could even argue that the miss for Argo was just due to voters assuming Affleck was safe, what I still believe, though obviously we will never know. And Birdman with it's "lack" of editing made sense in that category.
In that regard Roma's snub is indeed more worrying and would strengthen the case of BlacKkKlansman.
No doubt. It's still rather puzzling that Argo didn't get a best director nomination. I wish I could see the balloting results or interview Academy members and ask why didn't "you" nominate Affleck? I can see too why Birdman didn't get an editing nomination. Just doing a series of long takes, probably doesn't "qualify" as best editing in enough Oscar voters minds. But with both snubs, it brings up the question: What in the world qualifies as best director and best editing? |
|
|
|
Post by Miles Morales on Jan 23, 2019 12:58:58 GMT
But with both snubs, it brings up the question: What in the world qualifies as best director and best editing? After freaking Bohemian Rhapsody got nominated for Editing, I don't even know anymore. I guess whatever has the flashiest editing, going by the nominees. |
|
