|
|
Post by wilcinema on Jan 28, 2019 10:23:10 GMT
So now that SAG blows the race wide open by going for Emily Blunt in A Quiet Place, who is going to win the Oscar?
This is my order of likelihood:
1. Regina King - If Beale Street Could Talk: She swept the critics' awards and the first two televised awards. The SAG+BAFTA snub makes her a weak frontrunner, but a frontrunner nonetheless. Her main competition, Amy Adams, has zero steam in this race, and no one seems interested in giving her an award this year. If Beale Street Could Talk hugely underperformed with the guilds and the Academy, but a win for Regina might look like the place where to award the movie.
2. Rachel Weisz - The Favourite: She's a previous Oscar winner, and she shares the category with a co-star. These are the main hurdles towards her win. Other than that, she would be a most deserving winner, and she's the odds' favourite to win at BAFTA. When the race goes crazy, usually BAFTA is the one voting body that brings sanity to the whole thing: this is how Tilda Swinton and Mark Rylance won in their respective years. With Olivia Colman almost dead in the Best Actress race, Weisz might become the acting prize for The Favourite.
3. Marina de Tavira - Roma: She was the shocking nominee on nomination morning, and she's riding the wave of success of her film. She's a nobody in Hollywood, so this might work against her, but if Roma becomes indeed the steamroller many are predicting it to be, she could be swept along, a bit like Juliette Binoche did for The English Patient.
4. Amy Adams - Vice: With Regina King sweeping the first two televised awards but missing in the following two, she should have started to build her momentum at SAG, the one place, among her peers, where the overdue factor should have left a mark. Not only did she lose in the film category, she lost in the TV category too (a typical case of vote-splitting). To her advantage, one of her main competitors, Rachel Weisz, didn't win, but that only highlights how there's very little passion for this performance in general. She could still have a comeback at BAFTA, but it sounds unlikely at the moment.
5. Emma Stone - The Favourite: While terrific in the movie, the Academy is not going to give her a second Oscar with no precursors under her belt. This is still her 3rd nomination in just a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jan 28, 2019 10:45:35 GMT
Regina King still seems like the most likely winner. In regards Marina de Tavira, I wouldn't count her totally out, as purely on the basis that she got in to begin with, she may be 2nd or 3rd favourite right now. I'm sorta shocked that Adams isn't running away with this race. I guess they just aren't in any hurry to give her that win. I'm counting her out now. Also, this would be a weak win for her first one, so I'm not at all disappointed to be doing so. As much as I loved Weisz and really enjoyed Stone in The Favourite, I'm in the all three ladies are co-leads camp, so I'm pleased neither are properly contending for the win. I would say Weisz is 2nd or 3rd favourite right now. So my ranking is actually the same as yours wilcinema |
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Jan 28, 2019 11:03:54 GMT
I agree with both your ranking and reasoning. If Weisz indeed wins BAFTA, I think she skyrockets to #1. But as of now, King's still the leader of the pack.
|
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 28, 2019 11:28:14 GMT
It's really really rare for an actor to not win an Oscar after 6 nominations. If she had been nominated for Arrival it would be 7, which is even rarer. That's like Geraldine Page or Al Pacino.
|
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,093 
Likes: 2,212
|
Post by speeders on Jan 28, 2019 11:46:49 GMT
If Weisz wins BAFTA she's the frontrunner. I don't think King will get it and I hope to God Adams doesn't and her continued snubs fill me with hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Jan 28, 2019 11:58:56 GMT
It's really really rare for an actor to not win an Oscar after 6 nominations. If she had been nominated for Arrival it would be 7, which is even rarer. That's like Geraldine Page or Al Pacino. Page and Pacino were considered the best in the business for a very long time. Adams is considered a good actress who got 6 nominations in 13 years, only one in Lead. Perhaps people think the nominations are enough? If you look closer, she's always nominated when she's in a strong ensemble ( The Fighter, The Master, Vice: 3 acting nominations; Doubt, American Hustle: 4 nominations). When she got to actually lead a movie ( Arrival), she was snubbed. I'm not sure she's seen as undeniable. |
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,535
Likes: 1,626
|
Post by Javi on Jan 28, 2019 16:02:59 GMT
I think Weisz takes BAFTA and might actually overcome King... but the race is so open that I could see a Marina de Tavira shocker in the works.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jan 28, 2019 16:21:11 GMT
It's really really rare for an actor to not win an Oscar after 6 nominations. If she had been nominated for Arrival it would be 7, which is even rarer. That's like Geraldine Page or Al Pacino. Page and Pacino were considered the best in the business for a very long time. Adams is considered a good actress who got 6 nominations in 13 years, only one in Lead. Perhaps people think the nominations are enough? If you look closer, she's always nominated when she's in a strong ensemble ( The Fighter, The Master, Vice: 3 acting nominations; Doubt, American Hustle: 4 nominations). When she got to actually lead a movie ( Arrival), she was snubbed. I'm not sure she's seen as undeniable. Yes, while she's been very fortunate to work in projects that have gotten attention from the Academy, I think for the most part she's been filler, and probably hasn't been that close to winning and hasn't really had that many major snubs/losses yet for the sympathy and overdue factor to kick in. Junebug - I know she tied at the Critics Choice, but I bet she finished no higher than 3rd place. Doubt - Again probably didn't finish any higher than 3rd place. The Fighter - Maybe no higher than 4th, and maybe even dead last. The Master - Another year where I think she was 4th or even worse. American Hustle - This is tricky because Blanchett won pretty much everything that year, and I think that she won by such a large margin that there was probably minimal difference between the other nominees. Plus, I've seen people have good arguments that Adams or Bullock were in second place, but again I don't think it matters because Blanchett won by such a large margin that there's not really an Adams was robbed factor even if she may have been runner-up. Vice - She could still technically win, but she's not won anything yet, and pundits and social media have mostly talked about Close's overdue narrative rather than Adams being overdue. If she loses again next month, I wouldn't be surprised if she were in 4th or 5th again. |
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 28, 2019 16:33:11 GMT
Yes, while she's been very fortunate to work in projects that have gotten attention from the Academy, I think for the most part she's been filler, and probably hasn't been that close to winning and hasn't really had that many major snubs/losses yet for the sympathy and overdue factor to kick in. Junebug - I know she tied at the Critics Choice, but I bet she finished no higher than 3rd place. Doubt - Again probably didn't finish any higher than 3rd place. The Fighter - Maybe no higher than 4th, and maybe even dead last. The Master - Another year where I think she was 4th or even worse. American Hustle - This is tricky because Blanchett won pretty much everything that year, and I think that she won by such a large margin that there was probably minimal difference between the other nominees. Plus, I've seen people have good arguments that Adams or Bullock were in second place, but again I don't think it matters because Blanchett won by such a large margin that there's not really an Adams was robbed factor even if she may have been runner-up. Vice - She could still technically win, but she's not won anything yet, and pundits and social media have mostly talked about Close's overdue narrative rather than Adams being overdue. If she loses again next month, I wouldn't be surprised if she were in 4th or 5th again. Junebug - She was 3rd after Weisz and Williams. Keener and McDormand were behind her. And she was new that year so she was never winning anyway. Doubt - She was probably 3rd or 4th here. Definitely not dead last. She got in all the precursors except the least important one (BFCA). Henson was last as she missed both BAFTA and GG. The Fighter - Definitely not dead last. She and Carter were the only two who scored all the precursors (Leo missed BAFTA). She was most likely 3rd after Leo and Carter. The Master - She was on equal footing as Field and Hunt since Hathaway was winning everything that year. Joint 2nd place. American Hustle - After Bullock, they were all on equal footing. Joint 3rd place. Vice - Even if King ends up winning she's still firmly 2nd. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 29, 2019 0:47:21 GMT
I picked Weisz here, but it's really whoever wins the BAFTA. We went down this road with Sylvester Stallone. Everybody was like, "Who cares, he didn't score a BAFTA or SAG. He's overdue. He won the Critics Choice, Globe, and most of the critics circle awards". When Elba won, people were like Rylance is dead. I get that Waltz won the Oscar without a SAG nomination. I get that Coburn won without a BAFTA nomination. But here's the problem: have we ever seen an Oscar winning performance which failed to score both the SAG and the BAFTA? You could say Marcia Gay Harden, but her film got the screeners in late in the game, and wasn't eligible for the BAFTA. My vote goes to Weisz. She's won the second most critics circle awards, behind you know who, and she's attached to a film nominated for the most nominations. The only problem with Adams is that her performance only has one big scene, and was in the beginning. Weisz has tons of big scenes with Stone/Colman, and her the scene when she fell off the horse and was bed-stricken was completely heart breaking. 1. Weisz 2. Stone 3. Adams 4. King 5. de Tavira But really, it's: 1. BAFTA winner 2. King 3. De Tavira |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 29, 2019 0:56:45 GMT
Vice - Even if King ends up winning she's still firmly 2nd. How would she be firmly second? Weisz and Stone have both been in the race and have each won more things than Adams has, and if Weisz takes BAFTA in a King-less field, why wouldn't that put her ahead at all? |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 29, 2019 1:17:19 GMT
I picked Weisz here, but it's really whoever wins the BAFTA. We went down this road with Sylvester Stallone. Everybody was like, "Who cares, he didn't score a BAFTA or SAG. He's overdue. He won the Critics Choice, Globe, and most of the critics circle awards". When Elba won, people were like Rylance is dead. I get that Waltz won the Oscar without a SAG nomination. I get that Coburn won without a BAFTA nomination. But here's the problem: have we ever seen an Oscar winning performance which failed to score both the SAG and the BAFTA? You could say Marcia Gay Harden, but her film got the screeners in late in the game, and wasn't eligible for the BAFTA. I don't quite agree with the King/Stallone comparisons. Stallone had the veteran/comeback narrative but had burned a lot of bridges in Hollywood. Elba winning SAG, I am convinced, was because of his Oscar snub and SAG reacted accordingly because of the timing of that snub. It can be argued that King got the Elba treatment at the Globes, but missing SAG/BAFTA isn't a death knell for her because SAG wound up being completely inconsequential because the winner there wasn't nominated for an Oscar. If Weisz or Stone or Adams had won, then we would be able to claim that SAG had given them the necessary boost, but if they couldn't win without King in the race, then how can we be sure they would win against her (considering she damn near swept the season in terms of critics' prizes as well as winning the BFCA and, more importantly, the Globe in a high-profile victory)? I think that the SAG snub worked very much in King's favor at the Globes (if she weren't winning before then, she damn sure secured it the moment she missed), and she actually did get the Oscar nomination, so she's in contention against three women who couldn't win SAG in a field without her, plus a woman who hasn't been a factor in the race until she did get nominated. We can look at past stats for trends, but the last decade has seemingly been designed to break as many trends as possible. Before Elba, it was unheard of for a SAG winner to miss an Oscar nomination, after all. I also don't think that King missing BAFTA hurt her that much in the long run, either. Moonlight underperformed there, and that actually had a strong campaign behind it. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 29, 2019 1:30:05 GMT
I also don't think that King missing BAFTA hurt her that much in the long run, either. Moonlight underperformed there, and that actually had a strong campaign behind it. Moonlight was nominated for the picture, supporting actor, supporting actress, and screenplay at the BAFTAs. Beale Street was just nominated for screenplay. Among the industry awards, Beale Street vastly underperformed compare to what critics circle groups, Globe, Critics Choice, and Satellite awards. I honestly I don't think King will win. No SAG and BAFTA are basically the kiss of death. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 29, 2019 1:49:32 GMT
I also don't think that King missing BAFTA hurt her that much in the long run, either. Moonlight underperformed there, and that actually had a strong campaign behind it. Moonlight was nominated for the picture, supporting actor, supporting actress, and screenplay at the BAFTAs. Beale Street was just nominated for screenplay. Among the industry awards, Beale Street vastly underperformed compare to what critics circle groups, Globe, Critics Choice, and Satellite awards. I honestly I don't think King will win. No SAG and BAFTA are basically the kiss of death. Yeah, Beale Street underperformed, but King managed to nevertheless overcome the hurdle and actually got the nomination. There's no reason to think she can't win because even though the SAG nominating committee didn't go for her film, it doesn't mean the entire voting body wouldn't have voted for her if she had gotten in. And BAFTA is likely going to favo(u)r one of the Favourite girls anyway, but I'd bet on King winning over Stone or even Weisz because: 1. She's not a prior winner. 2. She's immensely respected by the acting community. 3. The response to her win at the Globes was pretty rapturous. If Weisz or Stone win BAFTA and then go on to win the Oscar, I'd be very well pleased, but I think King's got a narrative going. People that did see her film loved her, and the Academy did see it (or, rather, enough saw it for her to get in). It's easier to get voters to watch movies once they've been nominated, and King is working the circuit. I think she could definitely win without SAG/BAFTA, especially as no one is going to be claiming both those prizes in a bloc against her. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 29, 2019 1:56:53 GMT
I picked Weisz here, but it's really whoever wins the BAFTA. We went down this road with Sylvester Stallone. Everybody was like, "Who cares, he didn't score a BAFTA or SAG. He's overdue. He won the Critics Choice, Globe, and most of the critics circle awards". When Elba won, people were like Rylance is dead. I get that Waltz won the Oscar without a SAG nomination. I get that Coburn won without a BAFTA nomination. But here's the problem: have we ever seen an Oscar winning performance which failed to score both the SAG and the BAFTA? You could say Marcia Gay Harden, but her film got the screeners in late in the game, and wasn't eligible for the BAFTA. I don't quite agree with the King/Stallone comparisons. Stallone had the veteran/comeback narrative but had burned a lot of bridges in Hollywood. Elba winning SAG, I am convinced, was because of his Oscar snub and SAG reacted accordingly because of the timing of that snub. It can be argued that King got the Elba treatment at the Globes, but missing SAG/BAFTA isn't a death knell for her because SAG wound up being completely inconsequential because the winner there wasn't nominated for an Oscar. If Weisz or Stone or Adams had won, then we would be able to claim that SAG had given them the necessary boost, but if they couldn't win without King in the race, then how can we be sure they would win against her (considering she damn near swept the season in terms of critics' prizes as well as winning the BFCA and, more importantly, the Globe in a high-profile victory)? I think that the SAG snub worked very much in King's favor at the Globes (if she weren't winning before then, she damn sure secured it the moment she missed), and she actually did get the Oscar nomination, so she's in contention against three women who couldn't win SAG in a field without her, plus a woman who hasn't been a factor in the race until she did get nominated. We can look at past stats for trends, but the last decade has seemingly been designed to break as many trends as possible. Before Elba, it was unheard of for a SAG winner to miss an Oscar nomination, after all. I also don't think that King missing BAFTA hurt her that much in the long run, either. Moonlight underperformed there, and that actually had a strong campaign behind it. The fact that King missed SAG has to hurt more than others being nominated and losing in a field without her. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 29, 2019 2:04:54 GMT
I don't quite agree with the King/Stallone comparisons. Stallone had the veteran/comeback narrative but had burned a lot of bridges in Hollywood. Elba winning SAG, I am convinced, was because of his Oscar snub and SAG reacted accordingly because of the timing of that snub. It can be argued that King got the Elba treatment at the Globes, but missing SAG/BAFTA isn't a death knell for her because SAG wound up being completely inconsequential because the winner there wasn't nominated for an Oscar. If Weisz or Stone or Adams had won, then we would be able to claim that SAG had given them the necessary boost, but if they couldn't win without King in the race, then how can we be sure they would win against her (considering she damn near swept the season in terms of critics' prizes as well as winning the BFCA and, more importantly, the Globe in a high-profile victory)? I think that the SAG snub worked very much in King's favor at the Globes (if she weren't winning before then, she damn sure secured it the moment she missed), and she actually did get the Oscar nomination, so she's in contention against three women who couldn't win SAG in a field without her, plus a woman who hasn't been a factor in the race until she did get nominated. We can look at past stats for trends, but the last decade has seemingly been designed to break as many trends as possible. Before Elba, it was unheard of for a SAG winner to miss an Oscar nomination, after all. I also don't think that King missing BAFTA hurt her that much in the long run, either. Moonlight underperformed there, and that actually had a strong campaign behind it. The fact that King missed SAG has to hurt more than others being nominated and losing in a field without her. You'd think it would, but I don't believe it actually does in this case. The reason that missing a precursor hurts is because it gives another competitor the opportunity to gain momentum. But Adams, Weisz and Stone all lost to a person who wasn't nominated for the Oscar. So SAG kinda becomes irrelevant because King managed to get nominated without it, so in a sense, she becomes an unknown quantity when it comes to the SAG voting base within the Academy. We don't know how voters with SAG would've gone with King if she had been in the race. Her biggest hurdle after the SAG miss was actually making sure she got the Oscar nomination, and she did. So a far smaller contingent of voters are seeing her film, and she's up against three women who couldn't win SAG without her, plus another de Tavira. King's ship righted the moment that Blunt won SAG; Blunt winning showed that there may not be enough passion within the industry for Adams to win on her sixth try, and Stone/Weisz may very well have split support as there hasn't been a clear favo(u)rite between them all season. Could King still lose at the end? Sure, but nothing that has happened thus far has shown anyone has the edge on her definitively. If anything, she had the most to gain from Blunt winning SAG while Adams/Weisz/Stone lost a fair amount of ground. So I'd still bet on King to win, with whoever wins BAFTA as the potential spoiler, rather than vice versa. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 29, 2019 3:11:10 GMT
Moonlight was nominated for the picture, supporting actor, supporting actress, and screenplay at the BAFTAs. Beale Street was just nominated for screenplay. Among the industry awards, Beale Street vastly underperformed compare to what critics circle groups, Globe, Critics Choice, and Satellite awards. I honestly I don't think King will win. No SAG and BAFTA are basically the kiss of death. Yeah, Beale Street underperformed, but King managed to nevertheless overcome the hurdle and actually got the nomination. There's no reason to think she can't win because even though the SAG nominating committee didn't go for her film, it doesn't mean the entire voting body wouldn't have voted for her if she had gotten in. And BAFTA is likely going to favo(u)r one of the Favourite girls anyway, but I'd bet on King winning over Stone or even Weisz because: 1. She's not a prior winner. 2. She's immensely respected by the acting community. 3. The response to her win at the Globes was pretty rapturous. If Weisz or Stone win BAFTA and then go on to win the Oscar, I'd be very well pleased, but I think King's got a narrative going. People that did see her film loved her, and the Academy did see it (or, rather, enough saw it for her to get in). It's easier to get voters to watch movies once they've been nominated, and King is working the circuit. I think she could definitely win without SAG/BAFTA, especially as no one is going to be claiming both those prizes in a bloc against her. Whenever you're nominated for an award, you can win that award. So in King's case, I am not saying she "can't win", but merely pointing out that without SAG and BAFTA nominations, her odds of winning are not very large. Lets face it, it's not the same as say Ali winning for Green Book or Close winning for The Wife. The first two are irrelevant. In 2004, Hilary Swank was once again up for Best Actress against Annette Bening, and once again, prevailed. Also in that same year, Clint Eastwood was already a multiple Oscar winner and Martin Scorsese had nothing. Eastwood still won. Stallone got a great ovation at the Globes, when he won for Creed. Guess what happened at the Oscars? I don't buy your narrative one bit. Beale Street is not up for Best Picture. The other nominees are. I just find it VERY unlikely that a performance not nominated at the Guilds and BAFTAs, when its screenplay was both eligible and nomination, would win. |
|
|
|
Post by bruinjoe96 on Jan 29, 2019 3:18:34 GMT
Yeah, Beale Street underperformed, but King managed to nevertheless overcome the hurdle and actually got the nomination. There's no reason to think she can't win because even though the SAG nominating committee didn't go for her film, it doesn't mean the entire voting body wouldn't have voted for her if she had gotten in. And BAFTA is likely going to favo(u)r one of the Favourite girls anyway, but I'd bet on King winning over Stone or even Weisz because: 1. She's not a prior winner. 2. She's immensely respected by the acting community. 3. The response to her win at the Globes was pretty rapturous. If Weisz or Stone win BAFTA and then go on to win the Oscar, I'd be very well pleased, but I think King's got a narrative going. People that did see her film loved her, and the Academy did see it (or, rather, enough saw it for her to get in). It's easier to get voters to watch movies once they've been nominated, and King is working the circuit. I think she could definitely win without SAG/BAFTA, especially as no one is going to be claiming both those prizes in a bloc against her. Whenever you're nominated for an award, you can win that award. So in King's case, I am not saying she "can't win", but merely pointing out that without SAG and BAFTA nominations, her odds of winning are not very large. Lets face it, it's not the same as say Ali winning for Green Book or Close winning for The Wife. The first two are irrelevant. In 2004, Hilary Swank was once again up for Best Actress against Annette Bening, and once again, prevailed. Also in that same year, Clint Eastwood was already a multiple Oscar winner and Martin Scorsese had nothing. Eastwood still won. Stallone got a great ovation at the Globes, when he won for Creed. Guess what happened at the Oscars? I don't buy your narrative one bit. Beale Street is not up for Best Picture. The other nominees are. I just find it VERY unlikely that a performance not nominated at the Guilds and BAFTAs, when its screenplay was both eligible and nomination, would win. You think Beale Street is going to walk away empty handed on Oscar night? |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 29, 2019 3:35:25 GMT
Whenever you're nominated for an award, you can win that award. So in King's case, I am not saying she "can't win", but merely pointing out that without SAG and BAFTA nominations, her odds of winning are not very large. Lets face it, it's not the same as say Ali winning for Green Book or Close winning for The Wife. The first two are irrelevant. In 2004, Hilary Swank was once again up for Best Actress against Annette Bening, and once again, prevailed. Also in that same year, Clint Eastwood was already a multiple Oscar winner and Martin Scorsese had nothing. Eastwood still won. Stallone got a great ovation at the Globes, when he won for Creed. Guess what happened at the Oscars? I don't buy your narrative one bit. Beale Street is not up for Best Picture. The other nominees are. I just find it VERY unlikely that a performance not nominated at the Guilds and BAFTAs, when its screenplay was both eligible and nomination, would win. You think Beale Street is going to walk away empty handed on Oscar night? The WGA, Scripter, and BAFTAs are still pending, but at the moment, I am leaning toward a win for adapted screenplay. But then again, the winner of the industry awards are most important. |
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Jan 29, 2019 8:16:17 GMT
Yeah, Beale Street underperformed, but King managed to nevertheless overcome the hurdle and actually got the nomination. There's no reason to think she can't win because even though the SAG nominating committee didn't go for her film, it doesn't mean the entire voting body wouldn't have voted for her if she had gotten in. And BAFTA is likely going to favo(u)r one of the Favourite girls anyway, but I'd bet on King winning over Stone or even Weisz because: 1. She's not a prior winner. 2. She's immensely respected by the acting community. 3. The response to her win at the Globes was pretty rapturous. If Weisz or Stone win BAFTA and then go on to win the Oscar, I'd be very well pleased, but I think King's got a narrative going. People that did see her film loved her, and the Academy did see it (or, rather, enough saw it for her to get in). It's easier to get voters to watch movies once they've been nominated, and King is working the circuit. I think she could definitely win without SAG/BAFTA, especially as no one is going to be claiming both those prizes in a bloc against her. Whenever you're nominated for an award, you can win that award. So in King's case, I am not saying she "can't win", but merely pointing out that without SAG and BAFTA nominations, her odds of winning are not very large. Lets face it, it's not the same as say Ali winning for Green Book or Close winning for The Wife. The first two are irrelevant. In 2004, Hilary Swank was once again up for Best Actress against Annette Bening, and once again, prevailed. Also in that same year, Clint Eastwood was already a multiple Oscar winner and Martin Scorsese had nothing. Eastwood still won. Stallone got a great ovation at the Globes, when he won for Creed. Guess what happened at the Oscars? I don't buy your narrative one bit. Beale Street is not up for Best Picture. The other nominees are. I just find it VERY unlikely that a performance not nominated at the Guilds and BAFTAs, when its screenplay was both eligible and nomination, would win. Apples and oranges, man. Stallone was not beloved at all at Hollywood, and that's one of the main reasons why he lost. Nobody has a grudge against Regina King.
The likeliest spoiler for Regina is Rachel Weisz, and she hardly is Clint Eastwood, or even Hilary Swank and Mahershala Ali, people who swept or are sweeping the televised awards.
Of course, predicting is a game and we're all playing, but just ask yourself this question: would Regina King have won SAG, had she been nominated?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Jan 29, 2019 11:33:47 GMT
Apples and oranges, man. Stallone was not beloved at all at Hollywood, and that's one of the main reasons why he lost. Nobody has a grudge against Regina King.
The likeliest spoiler for Regina is Rachel Weisz, and she hardly is Clint Eastwood, or even Hilary Swank and Mahershala Ali, people who swept or are sweeping the televised awards.
Of course, predicting is a game and we're all playing, but just ask yourself this question: would Regina King have won SAG, had she been nominated?
Stallone was not beloved in Hollywood? What? How? Are you suggesting that the actors, directors, and writers were paid to give Stallone a standing ovation at the Globes? And King is highly beloved how? Sounds like you're making things up and/or providing an excuse. The fact still remain: King did not receive the SAG and BAFTA, the two biggest precursor nominations. The only person who ever won an acting Oscar without either was Marcia Gay Harden, and her film had screener problems. No screener problems existed with Beale Street. It scored the WGA and BAFTA Adapted Screenplay nomination. King was not nominated at the SAG, so it's really head-scratching to wonder if she would have won the SAG, if nominated. In other words, if you didn't receive enough votes to make the cut, why would you expect the performance to win? And no, I don't buy that ONLY Weisz can "spoil" King. Whoever wins the BAFTA, whether it be Adams, Weisz, or Stone will be the front-runner. |
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 30, 2019 14:11:49 GMT
It's probably just wishful thinking but I placed a superbet on Amy Adams prevaling at the BAFTAs. She has received 7 nominations there. That's probably a record (of most nominations without a win, though I'm not sure since the Wikipedia page doesn't have a tally table). I think it's possible that they award her this year since they clearly like her enough to nominate her whenever she's got something remotely baity. I guess her personality (polite and sweet) really appeals to the Brits or something. It'd be a huge boost for her.
Rachel Wesiz is British but she's also only had 1 nomination (for Constant Gardener) before this year.
I also can't help but notice the parallel between Rylance and Adams this year. Rylance was also nominated for every single tv award there was for Wolf Hall in 2016 and ended up losing both everywhere UNTIL the BAFTAs. The rest is history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 30, 2019 15:39:15 GMT
wilcinemaYou really have no way of knowing if either of these things are true. Well that fact that she wasn’t nominated is pretty telling.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Feb 1, 2019 5:27:19 GMT
Marcia Gay Harden won with a lot less precursors than Regina King. But they, like Mark Rylance are very respected in Hollywood.
Sylvester Stallone had a horrible reputation for being a mediocre actor making bad movies. He essentially played the Rocky character for 40 years.
Previous winners Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone will vote split - neither are front runners.
Lack of passion for Amy Adams. Vice is really Christian Bale's film. Can't win Oscar without major precursors. Weisz is favored to win BAFTA.
The supporting categories tends to favor the critics favorites. Willem Dafoe and Laurie Metcalf were the few exceptions. Rylance was the critics favorite his year.
|
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Feb 1, 2019 11:02:16 GMT
Regina King... Obviously !
|
|
