Home Forums Movies What if… Part 3

What if… Part 3

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)
Created
7 years ago
Last Reply
7 years ago
17
replies
1827
views
10
users
Macbeth
3
Laactingnyc
3
Beau S.
2
  • Anthony 🐜
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 26th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #97960

    What if Joaquin Phoenix had not made those “anti-oscar” comments, and actually campaigned throughout awards season last year? would he have won or at least been considered a close second?…

    Did his “anti-Oscar” rant really hurt his chances though? Is the  Academy of Motion Picture & Science that  devious and deceitful to snub a worthy winner just for speaking his mind?

    But i digress. In my opinion, it was Daniel Day Lewis’s year, and his name was engraved on that Best Actor statue the moment Lincoln started production.

    The Master was my second favorite film of 2013, and i believe Joaquin Phoenix’s performance was miles better than Daniel Day Lewis, but he had 2 factors working against him: It was a picture about Abraham Lincoln, played by the Academys beloved actor Daniel Day Lewis, directed by one of Hollywood’s greatest and most awarded directors (Steven Spielberg).

    ReplyCopy URL
    Beau S.
    Member
    Joined:
    Feb 10th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #97961

    Wallis, Henry, and the film were not sag members which means they couldn’t have been nominated

    That’s incorrect – non-SAG members have been nominated and won at SAG (most of the winning Slumdog Millionaire ensemble were not SAG members). Beasts was disqualified because it did not adhere to SAG’s agreement regarding ultra-low budget films, which stipulates certain payment and percentage of gross for the actors in the film. In laymen’s terms, it means the actors weren’t paid enough to be considered “professional” actors in the eyes of SAG. Non-professional actors cannot be nominated at SAG, but non-SAG members can.

    The producers/distributors were given a few weeks to increase the actors’ pay to make them eligible, but they chose against it.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Laactingnyc
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 29th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #97962

    [quote=”Nikolay_Kozma”]Wallis, Henry, and the film were not sag members which means they couldn’t have been nominated

    That’s incorrect – non-SAG members have been nominated and won at SAG (most of the winning Slumdog Millionaire ensemble were not SAG members). Beasts was disqualified because it did not adhere to SAG’s agreement regarding ultra-low budget films, which stipulates certain payment and percentage of gross for the actors in the film. In laymen’s terms, it means the actors weren’t paid enough to be considered “professional” actors in the eyes of SAG. Non-professional actors cannot be nominated at SAG, but non-SAG members can.

    The producers/distributors were given a few weeks to increase the actors’ pay to make them eligible, but they chose against it.[/quote]

    Oh shit… lol. I knew there was some reason that they couldn’t have been nominated

     

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Jeffrey... - Oct 14, 2019
Movies
thatner... - Oct 14, 2019
Movies
Leo Gra... - Oct 14, 2019
Movies