Jennifer deserved her nomination for Winters bone, and she deserves it here, but I don't agree with her win. IMO all the other nominated actresses were better than her. I also don't find SLP all that alluring. Good to see someone agree with me. It's a feel good movie, entertaining, but not necessarily great. I have a big issue with Bradley Cooper getting a best actor nomination for this.
Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa
It's entirely possible that the best director snub to Ben Afflec is winning him sympathy votes, but Argo really is a very good movie. I liked it more than Lincoln, which was meticulously done but rather bland. Argo had more excitement, suspense (even though we knew what really happened) than either Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, or SLP. IMO SLP was the most predictable movie of the nominated ones. It's a highly overrated movie, and Jennifer may be getting the benefit of that, plus of being young and beautiful. She is a really good actress, but like Gwyneth Paltrow she may win the Oscar too soon and for the wrong movie.
"Skyfall" won a SAG Award!!!
Stunt ensemble: "Skyfall"
Personally, I thought Jennifer Lawrence was overrated as Katniss. There were a few moments there where I didn't believe the emotion.
I think she's good. But I think her talent is being blown out of proportion.
As far as Anne Hathaway goes, I like her. But I understand why some people find her personality annoying. It's the uber-earnestness and the "trying too hard", and being too much like a an over excited puppy. Sometimes it comes across in interviews and I just want to tell her to calm down.
I can't get over how empty Jennifer Lawrence's eyes look. An actors eyes are so important, but hers look as if there were nothing behind. She changes her expression by pouting or blinking a few times but nothing happens in the eyes.
Well that I disagree with entirely (Asli's post).
If you've seen THG, Winter's Bone, The Burning Plains, or Poker House, it kind of blows my mind that anyone could say that she's just playing Jennifer Lawrence in her roles. In fact I was super excited when she got the role for SLP because all of her roles are normally so very dramatic and heart-wrenching. SLP is a departure for her.
I haven't said anything like that in my post?
Originally Posted by michiruwater
This is how I feel. Not saying it was unreasonable for Jennifer Lawrence to get a nomination, but I personally would have nominated Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty), Marion Cotillard (Rust and Bone), Emmanuelle Riva (Amour), Naomi Watts (The Impossible), and Rachel Weisz (The Deep Blue Sea) with my vote going to Riva with Chastain and Weisz a close second. I mean if you watch any of those above performances and then watch Jennifer Lawrence in SLP, there's just no comparison of skill and depth because it's obvious she lacks it. Asli says she looks dead behind the eyes and I agree actually. She looks vacant a lot of the times and her attempt to show emotion tend to be based on superficial changes of expression without the real nuances an actor can work with in front of the camera.
Originally Posted by Vash01
Again, she really is talented, but she's not quite fully cooked yet and can use training and/or more experience.
Is it me, or does this it seem like this year's Oscars are going to be a lot less predictable than in years past?
It seems like most years, all but maybe one of two of the major awards are a virtual certainty by this point, but I feel like out of the big 6 categories the only real locks this year are Anne Hathaway and Daniel Day-Lewis (and possibly Spielberg, but that's mostly to do with who's missing from the category).
Yeah, Jennifer Lawrence can probably be called the favourite for Actress right now, but I think Chastain is definitely still in the race, and I've even seen some speculation on the possibility that those two split the vote enough for Emmanuelle Riva to Adrien Brody her way in there, due to the fact that her supporters seem to be the most passionate.
Supporting Actor seems like a complete toss-up to me, made even more confusing by the fact that Christoph Waltz wasn't even nominated here due to Django not screening on time.
And the Best Picture race is the most intriguing in years. If it wasn't for the Affleck snub I think you could probably say that Argo had it in the bag by now, but there's no ignoring the fact that it's been over twenty years since a movie won Best Picture without a directing nomination.
Last edited by AshleyN; 01-29-2013 at 12:08 AM.
I watched the SAGs a bit the other day. Very glad Bryan Cranston won for Breaking Bad. Damien Lewis is great on Homeland, but Cranston gives one of the best TV performances I've ever seen. I know Cranston has already won plenty, but the swing recently has been toward Lewis.
I agree that only Day-Lewis and Hathaway are locks. I wish Hathaway was upset in the Oscars though because I thought her performance was over-the-top and her award speeches are annoying. However, no way's she going to lose.
Jennifer's acceptance speeches (Golden Globes and SAG) have been wonderful. She looked genuinely surprised, and humble, yet not overly emotional (crying) in her acceptance speech. She is a very likable young lady, and very talented. I just don't feel that her role or acting in SLP is on par with that of her competitors at this time. They will be 'wuzrobbed' if she wins the best lead actress Oscar.
I may be the only one that does not understand why Anne Hathaway is a lock for the supporting actress Oscar (and why she has won every award for SA so far). I don't have a problem with her personality or even her acceptance speech (I only watched the one at GG; I missed that part of SAG). I feel that her role is too short compared to her competitors. Helen Hunt, for example, appears in the entire movie and has a very strong contribution to the story. Anne's role is only a small part of the story we see in Les Mis. I had the same complaint about Judi Dench winning for Shakespeare in love, but in her case it was obvious that it was done to make up for the injustice (not winning for Mrs. Brown)
the previous year.
That ... and the fact that the Screen Actors' Guild is looking at acting only. There's more than just the performances that go into an overall "best picture" for an Oscar.
Originally Posted by Spareoom
It is a *supporting* category--why should limited time screen be a negative in a supporting role? I have not seen The Sessions, but if "Helen Hunt, for example, appears in the entire movie and has a very strong contribution to the story", why isn't she competing in the Lead category? Well, I know why...
IMO she should have been in the 'lead' category.
Originally Posted by manhn
I think people over-estimate screen time as an indicator of whether a role is supporting or not. I think a lot of it has to do with whether the role is the central part of the story or if it orbits and "supports" the main plot. I haven't seen The Sessions, but it seems like it's John Hawke's film with Hunt supporting him even if she has a considerable amount of screen time. However, if studio is backing a movie and its Oscar campaign, then what I wrote is moot and it just means the actor/actress is in a category that he/she has a better chance of winning in.
Sometimes the supporting line is blurry. Like, you can argue that Jennifer Hudson is really the lead actress in Dreamgirls or Rachel Weisz in The Constant Gardener, but you can also argue they were either part of an ensemble or that being the lead female role in that particular film meant you're still supporting the main male role.
I think it was smart to put Hunt in the supporting category this year. There was no way she would have been guaranteed for Best Actress without the power of someone like Harvey Weinstein in this year of excellent female performances. Plus, Hunt was winning a few critics awards or nominated for critics awards throughout the season for Best Supporting Actress prior to the Oscar nominations.
^ I agree that there's often a bit of subjectivity in whether a role is "lead" or "supporting." However Helen Hunt's role does not, IMO, fall into that grey area. It is unquestionably a lead performance, not a supporting one.
"Won't win in the lead category" should not be allowed as a justification for nominating someone in the supporting category instead.
(Of course in my view it's moot, as I don't think she deserves to win in either category. But then I don't think she should have won -- or even have been nominated -- for As Good As it Gets, either.)
If that's the case, then I wonder why critic circles either rewarded or nominated Hunt in the supporting category all season prior to the award nominations? It's not as if critics have a reason to put her in the supporting category when she's really a lead the way Academy members may.
Originally Posted by Artemis@BC
I agree with you that the "won't win in the lead category" should not be a justification. I'm just saying a smart producer and campaign manager of a movie will play that card when given the opportunity (and if they have another actor/actress to back in the lead category who has a stronger chance).
Apparently ZD30 wasn't released with enough time for all the voters to screen it, so Jennifer was expected to win the SAG over Jessica.
Originally Posted by BigB08822
SAG are usually the best predictor, however at the SAG, only actors vote for the winners. For the Oscars, nominees are chosen by their disciplines (actors nominate the actors, animators nominate the animated films, etc), but every voting member of the Academy votes for the actual winners in every category. So just because the actors voted for Jennifer here, doesn't mean that she'll win the Oscar.
But again, this year's SAG for actress isn't fully accurate to predict the Oscar because of when the screener for ZD30 was released.
IMO the late release is going to hurt ZDT at the Oscars. By the time it was released, people had already made up their minds. Not sure why they decided to release it that late.
Oscar-bait movies are frequently released in late December -- the big difference this year is that so many were released a month or so earlier. Plus there was a ton of pre-release press and buzz for Argo, Lincoln, Les Mis, and Life of Pi ... but absolutely none for ZDT. It's almost like the movie was kept as much a secret as the mission was!
Originally Posted by Vash01