|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 9, 2021 15:12:14 GMT
I mean, this is all fine and it is indeed nice to see a different list of nominees from an awards body as huge as this, but at the end of the day this list will always come with an asterisk because it's not really the pick of the organization. Had the whole membership made these choices, this would've been the awards story of the year. Alas, these are just jury picks and for me they'll always have that aura around them. So while it does indeed feel weird not to see someone like Carey Mulligan here (especially when both of her movies were so heavily supported by the general membership), her snub is rather easy to explain, even if it does have a sour taste to it. That's why I'm not as enthusiastic about this whole thing. And it seems that it just makes the pathway to the win easier for the bigger contenders. What rule is there that says a whole organisation has to be responsible for nominations? Lots of major, respected awards bodies have a jury nomination system. They've changed their system, but it's arguably for the better. There is no more asterisk attached than any other show, imho. It's their rules to change. The membership as a whole proved to be lazy at the nomination stage, simply parroting things being nominated in America in advance of the Oscars. Letting the entire membership nominate was arguably destroying the identity of BAFTA. It became just an Oscar lapdog. This way, they can at least stand on their own two feet again for the first time in over 20 years. And the whole membership still gets to vote on the winners. Let AACTA become the lazy foreign Oscar predictors.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Mar 9, 2021 15:17:51 GMT
BAFTA really looked straight into the eyes of every Oscar hopeful and said out loud: NO. and I love them for that, all those underserving sweeps from previous years were getting boring and annoying. That said, the dissonance between jury and non-jury categories might cause some backlash among the BAFTA membership. I mean, people from movies they clearly loved were left out, and now they have to vote for people who don't align with their tastes.
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,885
Likes: 5,052
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Mar 9, 2021 15:18:36 GMT
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Mar 9, 2021 15:24:10 GMT
Wow, Carey Mulligan got shut out. She should have been a hometown favorite. She also lost the Globe, which should have been an easy win.
If Viola Davis wins the SAG (and she's a SAG favorite), she could go on and win the Oscar. I don't think they are going to give a 3rd Oscar to Frances McDormand so soon.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Mar 9, 2021 15:24:49 GMT
I mean, this is all fine and it is indeed nice to see a different list of nominees from an awards body as huge as this, but at the end of the day this list will always come with an asterisk because it's not really the pick of the organization. Had the whole membership made these choices, this would've been the awards story of the year. Alas, these are just jury picks and for me they'll always have that aura around them. So while it does indeed feel weird not to see someone like Carey Mulligan here (especially when both of her movies were so heavily supported by the general membership), her snub is rather easy to explain, even if it does have a sour taste to it. That's why I'm not as enthusiastic about this whole thing. And it seems that it just makes the pathway to the win easier for the bigger contenders. This is exactly my thought. People give the Globes shit because they are decided on by a random group of 90 people. Why should we care what a small jury panel picks? They lose their meaning.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2021 15:30:51 GMT
So people bitch about awards season being too predictable, but then when something cool like this happens, you complain because it's not predictable enough? I’m only bitching about Mulligan not getting a nom because it’s a huge hit to her chances of winning and I’m very much rooting for her. Yeah, but McDormand and Kirby are really the only ones who benefit, and even if one of them manages to nab the BAFTA, it's still a steep-ass climb to the Oscar. Mulligan could still win this with only a SAG under her belt (well, that and a CC, but who cares about them?). Plus, Mulligan's snub is going to make waves and could actually still work in her favor.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 9, 2021 15:31:06 GMT
I mean, this is all fine and it is indeed nice to see a different list of nominees from an awards body as huge as this, but at the end of the day this list will always come with an asterisk because it's not really the pick of the organization. Had the whole membership made these choices, this would've been the awards story of the year. Alas, these are just jury picks and for me they'll always have that aura around them. So while it does indeed feel weird not to see someone like Carey Mulligan here (especially when both of her movies were so heavily supported by the general membership), her snub is rather easy to explain, even if it does have a sour taste to it. That's why I'm not as enthusiastic about this whole thing. And it seems that it just makes the pathway to the win easier for the bigger contenders. What rule is there that says a whole organisation has to be responsible for nominations? Lots of major, respected awards bodies have a jury nomination system. They've changed their system, but it's arguably for the better. There is no more asterisk attached than any other show, imho. It's their rules to change. The membership as a whole proved to be lazy at the nomination stage, simply parroting things being nominated in America in advance of the Oscars. Letting the entire membership nominate was arguably destroying the identity of BAFTA. It became just an Oscar lapdog. This way, they can at least stand on their own two feet again for the first time in over 20 years. And the whole membership still gets to vote on the winners. Let AACTA become the lazy foreign Oscar predictors. Obviously an awards body can operate in whichever way it prefers. My point is that however lazy and uninspired the BAFTA nominations usually are, they reflect the picks of their whole membership. What's the point of having so many members if their votes don't matter, even if they're lazy? Transform the whole BAFTA organization into some sort of a yearly jury then. That's where the asterisk comes from. This unusual and different set of nominees is a selection of a highly limited number of people. Which is not something that is done inside award bodies with such big memberships. Hence the asterisk. They can do whatever they want, obviously. I don't think I said anything about the new system being bad. I'm just saying that we have to keep that in mind when commenting on this list and praising/hating it for its uniqueness. I'm saying that because I see a lot of baffled reactions from people who obviously don't know about this year's system. Sure, all this sounds nice on paper but the general membership tastes aren't changed.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2021 15:31:56 GMT
We needed to see this GIF much more this year.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 9, 2021 15:33:24 GMT
I mean, this is all fine and it is indeed nice to see a different list of nominees from an awards body as huge as this, but at the end of the day this list will always come with an asterisk because it's not really the pick of the organization. Had the whole membership made these choices, this would've been the awards story of the year. Alas, these are just jury picks and for me they'll always have that aura around them. So while it does indeed feel weird not to see someone like Carey Mulligan here (especially when both of her movies were so heavily supported by the general membership), her snub is rather easy to explain, even if it does have a sour taste to it. That's why I'm not as enthusiastic about this whole thing. And it seems that it just makes the pathway to the win easier for the bigger contenders. This is exactly my thought. People give the Globes shit because they are decided on by a random group of 90 people. Why should we care what a small jury panel picks? They lose their meaning. Disagree. People give the Globes shit because there is no transparency in that organisation and they have been known to be corrupt for decades. SAG nominations are decided by jury. Once the nominations are made, then the whole membership gets to vote on the winners. Are we suddenly go to decide SAG is illegitimate? The Jury system is used effectively in a lot of respected awards shows.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 9, 2021 15:35:14 GMT
What rule is there that says a whole organisation has to be responsible for nominations? Lots of major, respected awards bodies have a jury nomination system. They've changed their system, but it's arguably for the better. There is no more asterisk attached than any other show, imho. It's their rules to change. The membership as a whole proved to be lazy at the nomination stage, simply parroting things being nominated in America in advance of the Oscars. Letting the entire membership nominate was arguably destroying the identity of BAFTA. It became just an Oscar lapdog. This way, they can at least stand on their own two feet again for the first time in over 20 years. And the whole membership still gets to vote on the winners. Let AACTA become the lazy foreign Oscar predictors. Obviously an awards body can operate in whichever way it prefers. My point is that however lazy and uninspired the BAFTA nominations usually are, they reflect the picks of their whole membership. What's the point of having so many members if their votes don't matter, even if they're lazy? Transform the whole BAFTA organization into some sort of a yearly jury then. That's where the asterisk comes from. This unusual and different set of nominees is a selection of a highly limited number of people. Which is not something that is done inside award bodies with such big memberships. Hence the asterisk. They can do whatever they want, obviously. I don't think I said anything about the new system being bad. I'm just saying that we have to keep that in mind when commenting on this list and praising/hating it for its uniqueness. I'm saying that because I see a lot of baffled reactions from people who obviously don't know about this year's system. Sure, all this sounds nice on paper but the general membership tastes aren't changed. So you have a problem with SAG as well, who also don't let their whole membership nominate?
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,885
Likes: 5,052
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Mar 9, 2021 15:37:20 GMT
We needed to see this GIF much more this year. A LOT more
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 9, 2021 15:40:40 GMT
Obviously an awards body can operate in whichever way it prefers. My point is that however lazy and uninspired the BAFTA nominations usually are, they reflect the picks of their whole membership. What's the point of having so many members if their votes don't matter, even if they're lazy? Transform the whole BAFTA organization into some sort of a yearly jury then. That's where the asterisk comes from. This unusual and different set of nominees is a selection of a highly limited number of people. Which is not something that is done inside award bodies with such big memberships. Hence the asterisk. They can do whatever they want, obviously. I don't think I said anything about the new system being bad. I'm just saying that we have to keep that in mind when commenting on this list and praising/hating it for its uniqueness. I'm saying that because I see a lot of baffled reactions from people who obviously don't know about this year's system. Sure, all this sounds nice on paper but the general membership tastes aren't changed. So you have a problem with SAG as well, who also don't let their whole membership nominate? Lordy, like I said, I don't have a problem. I didn't know about SAG and I don't know how big a sample of voters pick their nominees. But if that's how their system has been for years then there's nothing to discuss about it. BAFTA changed its system for Directing and Acting this year. Dramatically. The result is exactly what they must've wanted and it's cool and unusual to see. BUT while looking at this result, one has to remember that it's not a result of the previous whole-membership system but of a new small-jury one. Which gives it quite a different aura and explains a lot to those who may be baffled by certain inclusions or snubs. That is all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2021 15:41:49 GMT
BAFTA nominee Cool Lester Smooth.
BAFTA nominee Paul Raci.
BAFTA nominee Wunmi Mosaku.
BAFTA nominee Barry Keoghan.
BAFTA nominee Mads Mikkelsen.
God, those all sound so right.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 9, 2021 15:46:50 GMT
So you have a problem with SAG as well, who also don't let their whole membership nominate? Lordy, like I said, I don't have a problem. I didn't know about SAG and I don't know how big a sample of voters pick their nominees. But if that's how their system has been for years then there's nothing to discuss about it. BAFTA changed its system for Directing and Acting this year. Dramatically. The result is exactly what they must've wanted and it's cool and unusual to see. BUT while looking at this result, one has to remember that it's not a result of the previous whole-membership system but of a new small-jury one. Which gives it quite a different aura and explains a lot to those who may be baffled by certain inclusions or snubs. That is all I'm saying. Yeah, I understand some people being baffled by the outcomes of the switch to Jury system in some cases. I just think the term asterisk is a bit extreme, as this is how they will operate for the foreseeable future. It's their new system and people will have to get used to it. I think the important thing, like with SAG, is that the entire membership gets to decide the winners.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Mar 9, 2021 15:48:41 GMT
This is exactly my thought. People give the Globes shit because they are decided on by a random group of 90 people. Why should we care what a small jury panel picks? They lose their meaning. Disagree. People give the Globes shit because there is no transparency in that organisation and they have been known to be corrupt for decades. SAG nominations are decided by jury. Once the nominations are made, then the whole membership gets to vote on the winners. Are we suddenly go to decide SAG is illegitimate? The Jury system is used effectively in a lot of respected awards shows. That's not the issue. People are acting like BAFTA is finally making cool, diverse choices. They aren't. The only difference this year is how they were voted on. If you have to change the format to get diverse nominees, then they don't mean as much. This is why you can't really compare them to previous years. That's the the only point.
How many people vote in the SAG juries btw?
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Mar 9, 2021 15:50:36 GMT
I’m only bitching about Mulligan not getting a nom because it’s a huge hit to her chances of winning and I’m very much rooting for her. Yeah, but McDormand and Kirby are really the only ones who benefit, and even if one of them manages to nab the BAFTA, it's still a steep-ass climb to the Oscar. Mulligan could still win this with only a SAG under her belt (well, that and a CC, but who cares about them?). Plus, Mulligan's snub is going to make waves and could actually still work in her favor. Everyone is asking about Carey Mulligan on twitter. This might work in her favour after all lmao.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2021 16:06:54 GMT
Yeah, but McDormand and Kirby are really the only ones who benefit, and even if one of them manages to nab the BAFTA, it's still a steep-ass climb to the Oscar. Mulligan could still win this with only a SAG under her belt (well, that and a CC, but who cares about them?). Plus, Mulligan's snub is going to make waves and could actually still work in her favor. Everyone is asking about Carey Mulligan on twitter. This might work in her favour after all lmao. It really, really could. Mulligan may not be the juggernaut sweeper, but neither is anyone else in the category, and only Kirby and McDormand showed up here who is actually in line for an Oscar nomination, and their win equity with the Oscars is pretty low in comparison. I'm actually not even expecting either Vanessa or Frances to win the BAFTA at this point. Right now it looks like we might have a situation where we go into Oscar night with the big precursors all having gone to a different person, and it's not even a guarantee all of the winners will be nominated at the Oscars. Same with Supporting Actress, where the one constant at every single precursor has been Maria Bakalova.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Mar 9, 2021 16:21:18 GMT
Yeah, but McDormand and Kirby are really the only ones who benefit, and even if one of them manages to nab the BAFTA, it's still a steep-ass climb to the Oscar. Mulligan could still win this with only a SAG under her belt (well, that and a CC, but who cares about them?). Plus, Mulligan's snub is going to make waves and could actually still work in her favor. Everyone is asking about Carey Mulligan on twitter. This might work in her favour after all lmao. Film Twitter was also out raged last year when J-Lo was snubbed for BAFTA. We all know how that turned out for Oscar. Mulligan likely will get nominated, but Best Actress is a real contest at this point.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 9, 2021 16:22:42 GMT
Everyone is asking about Carey Mulligan on twitter. This might work in her favour after all lmao. Film Twitter was also out raged last year with J-Lo was snubbed for BAFTA. We all know how that turned out for Oscar. Mulligan likely will get nominated, but Best Actress is a real contest at this point. Not everyone is J. Lo this year. The comparison is meaningless because no one this year had the baggage that Lopez had.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 9, 2021 16:23:24 GMT
Mulligan takes a big hit. There’s still no clear front runner but she really needs to win SAG now. Sadly, think Seyfried has little to no shot at winning in supporting anymore. Pretty disappointing. this has been obvious for weeks now. She'll be lucky to score nod.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Mar 9, 2021 16:26:32 GMT
Film Twitter was also out raged last year with J-Lo was snubbed for BAFTA. We all know how that turned out for Oscar. Mulligan likely will get nominated, but Best Actress is a real contest at this point. Not everyone is J. Lo this year. The comparison is meaningless because no one this year had the baggage that Lopez had. The logic is the same. When J-Lo was snubbed for BAFTA, the assumption was that she would get sympathy votes for SAG. We know how that had turned out.
Bottom line, AMPAS could care less about Film Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Mar 9, 2021 16:28:34 GMT
I mean, this is all fine and it is indeed nice to see a different list of nominees from an awards body as huge as this, but at the end of the day this list will always come with an asterisk because it's not really the pick of the organization. Who cares if it’s the pick of the whole organisation though? Surely the whole point of these kinds of things is to promote the movies, and they just promoted a whole bunch of ones that nobody would have watched otherwise. Hell, I just added 5 movies to my Netflix list as soon as they were done! That’s far more important and meaningful than finding out who the consensus picks of a massive group of people who more often than not probably didn’t even watch half the movies.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Mar 9, 2021 16:35:48 GMT
This system of having a jury select the nominees is ridiculous. In these nominations, POC are actually overrepresented in contrast to the overall population. 87.2% of Brits are white, you'd think it's would be half if you judged from these nominations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2021 16:44:15 GMT
what the fuck omg this is great
the categories are a mess might as well predict kirby or something
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2021 16:56:48 GMT
BAFTA nominee Cool Lester Smooth. BAFTA nominee Paul Raci. BAFTA nominee Wunmi Mosaku. BAFTA nominee Barry Keoghan. BAFTA nominee Mads Mikkelsen. God, those all sound so right.And BAFTA nominee Alfre Woodard! That for me was the most pleasant of all of the surprises this morning.
|
|