( +1 hidden )
January 7, 2016 at 1:14 pm #206630
In Tom’s new podcast with Pete Hammond (link below), Pete reveals that screeners of “The Revenant” have not gone out to SAG voters because they are worried about piracy. If that is the case, should those SAG voters who haven’t yet seen “The Revenant” abstain from casting their ballots? Should members be required to watch ALL nominees before voting? Or is this simply an example where the studio (Fox) might penalized for not sending the screeners? I can see both sides of the argument, but I’m curious what you all have to say.January 7, 2016 at 1:22 pm #206632
Voting only for the things they have seen– would be against the whole premise of SAG.January 7, 2016 at 1:35 pm #206633
Funny thing is The Revenant has been leaked for weeks now, and the studios would certainly be aware of this.
As for if they should or they shouldn’t. They probably shouldn’t vote if they haven’t seen the picture, but we all know this won’t happen.
And Tom was picking Joy for wins long before he seen the movieJanuary 7, 2016 at 1:36 pm #206634
Of course they should and that goes for any awards judging.
Ralph said in the Tom/Hammond podcast thread that SAG did get The Revenant after all.January 7, 2016 at 1:50 pm #206635This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.January 7, 2016 at 7:22 pm #206637
If Bryan Cranston wins, I’ll be okay with it. As long as the pretentious Carol & mediocre Oscar bait Product The Danish Girl win nothing, I’ll be fine. I don’t even consider Johnny Depp a remote possibility and personally think he’s just lucky to be there LOL.
lol @ you calling out Danish Girl for being Oscar bait and then being ok with Cranston winning.January 7, 2016 at 8:11 pm #206638
Give all of these voters an affidavit for every single category.
It will stop *some* people from casting blind votes, at least.January 7, 2016 at 9:07 pm #206639
Well, I can’t say that it would be fair to force them to abstain if they haven’t seen the film yet, because it should be the responsibility of the studio and the guild to make sure that they have every movie. If they can’t access a film at all, then it would just take power away from certain members and give more power to others, and that’s just unequitable.January 7, 2016 at 9:15 pm #206640
Part of the problem is the time frame. Some of the DVDs still haven’t arrived and the voting deadline is 1/29.
(and if you add in the TV stuff…it is virtually impossible to watch that much stuff in so short a time period.)
Remember when the Oscars were late March even April sometimes? I wish they’d go back to that.January 7, 2016 at 10:07 pm #206641This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.January 8, 2016 at 3:11 am #206642
I can’t imagine Cranston winning. The performance was so bad. Compared to what Cranston did in Trumbo, Meryl Streep in Doubt and Cate Blanchett in The Golden Age should be praised for their subtelty.January 8, 2016 at 6:28 am #206643
First of all, this thread is silly if you ask me. Get all the facts before you ask the question.
SAG members are only getting 9 dvds period (Beasts of No Nation, The Big Short, Brooklyn, Carol, The Danish Girl, Room, Spotlight, Steve Jobs, Straight Outta Compton) . So, do you tihnk we shouldnt vote for anything else?
No. Because we got also got iTunes links to screeners and digital screeners (including “The Revenant”) of all the other movies. Plus there are screenings of all of the films one can go to in person. So, there are a myriad of ways to see the films.
Now, I do agree one should see everything before voting. However, if you’re gonna get mad about SAG members not having seen everything before voting, you could say the same thing about any Guild and their voting process. Why single out one voting group?
Because SAG-AFTRA is by far the largest and most diffused guild of all, therefore it’s extra hard to check up on who’s watched what comparing to other guilds.
And because %80 of people only follow Oscars to see what happens in acting categories.January 8, 2016 at 9:03 am #206644This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.