Forum Replies Created
October 11, 2019 at 4:15 pm #1203132630
I based some of my picks based on what albums seemed really relevant at the time as well as beyond that time.October 11, 2019 at 12:56 am #1203131670
Justified by Justin Timberlake. It’s mostly an R&B album, but it was entered in the Pop category. It would’ve made more sense if they entered Justified in the Contemporary R&B category.March 15, 2019 at 3:17 pm #1202817905
anyone else?March 10, 2019 at 7:31 pm #1202811668
I actually thought her role in Vice was as baity as it could get so I think she might struggle to get nominated for a couple of years.
The longest she’s ever had to wait between nominations is 5 years. And The Woman in the Window is coming out this year.March 9, 2019 at 1:44 pm #1202810486
It was just the inexplicable whims of the SAG nominations committee. Another committee might (and likely) would have chosen King. The full membership would have done that. Without her in the lineup, they picked a non-Oscar nominee as the winner, telling us that this is primarily a place-holder until the Oscars. Weisz and Stone were both former Oscar winners and splitting their votes. Adams was never winning for this role. de Tavira was the one I was worried about being the surprise nominee, but we see now that voters liked “Roma,” but didn’t love it. So King it is then. Maybe it shouldn’t have seemed like such a contested race in hindsight, but the SAGS and BAFTAs messed things up this year. The Globes seem to be the one to listen to now. Glad I stuck with King to the end!
de Tavira was never going to win, even if Roma did win Best Picture. For her to win would just break too way many rules and be completely unprecedented in a way that even King’s wasn’t. Her nomination will certainly help her find work in Hollywood though, same with Yalitza assuming she continues acting.March 9, 2019 at 12:48 pm #1202810437
I think people unfairly scrutinize her due to her quick accumulation of so many nominations, but I do feel that each of them have been well-deserved. She does benefit from being cast in a lot of BP contenders with stellar casts so sure you can call some of them coattail nominations, but this happens all the time with the Oscars and doesn’t necessarily mean she doesn’t deserve them. I still think she was snubbed for Arrival because people assumed she was a shoo-in, because her performance was acclaimed and Arrival got 8 nominations including Picture, Director, Editing, etc. I think for her to win it will have to be an undeniable performance that sweeps all of the awards.
I agree with your reasoning as to why she was snubbed for Arrival. People assumed she was a shoo-in so they voted for somebody else.March 8, 2019 at 6:36 pm #1202809588
Great suggestions so far. Undoing a like, as can be done on any other site, needs to be at the top of the list. Anyone who wants a dislike feature though must be new or not remember the chaos and toxicity a few years ago when we had that. It was taken away for good reason.
Exactly how toxic did it get? I’m just curious.March 7, 2019 at 12:05 pm #1202807909
Does anyone else wish they’d show the Honorary Oscars on the show again? The sheer joy of veterans, sometimes already rewarded competitively, receiving a special award signifying their remarkable body of work. I remember watching a clip of Steven Spielberg presenting Kirk Douglas an Honorary Oscar during the 68th Academy Awards. He even quoted one of his famous lines from The Bad and the Beautiful. And the audience ovation was great. Honorary Oscars can mean something. Imagine how amazing it would’ve been to see Cicely Tyson on stage accepting her Honorary Award. The standing ovation she’d have received. The speech she would’ve given. Her introduction. I wish the Academy would show the Honorary Awards on the ceremony again. I think it would be worth the extra time.March 6, 2019 at 4:07 pm #1202806593
Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone were robbed darlings. My god their performances are too good for this world. Emma Stone is deviously exceptional and Rachel Weisz so delicious as Sarah Churchill but NOT nutritious. My girls. Don’t get me started. Outstanding acting. Wholesome performances. Don’t care at all how King won. She’s yesterday news already. (at least for me! Xx)
whatever.March 6, 2019 at 3:49 pm #1202806572
I think in the end the fluke wasn’t her, which many people commented about, the fluke were the snubs. I think it was very telling how she won everything (or almost all of it) she was nominated for, and whenever she wasn’t nominated, those who won, clearly won because King wasn’t there. Weisz won Bafta for being british (and Bafta loooved her film, the Oscars clearly didn’t), Blunt won SAG without even being an Oscar nominee or the supposed next in line to King. That says a lot. Of course Coleman won for being british too and ended up with the Oscar, but King and this category were far more “set” and out of options than Best Actress/Close. King had everything going for her, including a category where only she mattered, she has/had huge industry support. Those 3 Emmys helped, she’s not Monique who came out of nowhere with that performance, or Marcia Gay Harden who came out of nowhere with a nomination. She had been extremely visible and beloved for these past few years and was praised and predicted from the start. Her status kept her visible and in the race, even when she wasn’t nominated. She even got a lot of work as a director recently, expanding her reach within the industry. And she campaigned. It was a nice win. Very much deserved.
Still, I feel the BAFTA and SAG snubs for King are an exception and not the rule.March 6, 2019 at 3:42 pm #1202806563
Anyone else?March 5, 2019 at 6:05 pm #1202805235
What’s the point of this thread if you’re only going to deny Glenn Close again?
I said I’d give Glenn Close 2 Oscars in my original post. If you really want to know I’m giving her back-to-back Oscars for Fatal Attraction and Dangerous Liaisons.