I haven't been drinking yet so can't blame my confusion on that, but fully half of these pundits have chosen 4 not 5 nominees and only half have chosen Streep who at this venture seems the likely winner.

Ok...what the heck is that about? lol

The Streep count is surprising, as is the Cruz support. I thought that "Broken Embraces" was considered underwhelming, and that after Cannes, Cruz's best chance at a nomination was with "Nine."

More Ronan love would have been nice, but I can understand that some are still worried about how "Lovely Bones" might turn out.

My ideal list:

Helen Mirren, "Last Station"
Carey Mulligan, "An Education"
Saoirse Ronan, "Lovely Bones"
Gabourey Sidibe, "Precious"
Meryl Streep, "Julie & Julia"

Abbie Cornish might have had Mirren's spot, but "Bright Star" is looking dimmer by the day.

So, in other words, I don't agree fully with any of the pundits in Actress. And that's okay with me.

Not only is Streep going to be nominated, but if they allowed more than one nomination per actress, she very possibly might have been in a position to get two.

How does the best reviewed performance of the year by the most admired actress of our time in a hit movie aimed squarely at the demographic of Oscar voters not get nominated? Particularly after she did last year for a radically less acclaimed performance?

The only way she is not nominated for J&J is if she is nominated for It's Complicated. And if Winslet last year could get nominated when she had two lead roles, and the one she was nominated for was not even being pushed for in that category, how would having potentially two films hurt her chances?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
Not only is Streep going to be nominated, but if they allowed more than one nomination per actress, she very possibly might have been in a position to get two.

I've never understood why actors are limited to one nomination per category. I would be able to blame the "spreading the wealth" idea moreso, if every other category, Director included, were not allowed dual nods.

Could anyone explain this to me? Why Soderbergh can get nominated for "Traffic" and "Erin Brockovich," but DiCaprio can't get in for both "Blood Diamond" and "The Departed?"

Acting is the only category in which it is not possible for more than one person to be nominated for a single film/achievement.

The nomination is best directing of a film, not best director officially; twice it has been awarded to two people for the same film. If the rules changed, then Joel Coen and Ethan Coen would have been nominated separately, since it would become an individual award, not for the achievement of directing whether done by one or two people.

The reason of course is that it used to be (and still happens occasionally) that a performer might have multiple nominations which would lessen his/her chances of winning most often. The acting branch has been pretty good when this comes up in seeing that one of the performances is nominated - the cases where multiple roles seemed to keep someone from getting in aren't that frequent (Sidney Poitier in 1967 is always mentioned as a major case).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
Acting is the only category in which it is not possible for more than one person to be nominated for a single film/achievement.

The nomination is best directing of a film, not best director officially; twice it has been awarded to two people for the same film.

The reason of course is that it used to be (and still happens occasionally) that a performer might have multiple nominations which would lessen his/her chances of winning most often. The acting branch has been pretty good when this comes up in seeing that one of the performances is nominated - the cases where multiple roles seemed to keep someone from getting in aren't that frequent (Sidney Poitier in 1967 is always mentioned as a major case).

Why does the acting branch take this precaution, then, while the branch in charge of 'Best Directing' does not? Isn't it possible that Soderbergh's own nomination for "Erin Brockovich" could have accrued enough votes to ultimately lose him his "Traffic" win? Obviously, because he did win, it didn't hurt him; the possibility of such a thing happening, though, is still there.

It isn't a big deal, but it makes me wonder whether sixth-place nominees ended up getting that fifth slot because an actor above him was nominated twice?

Manufactured example:

Best Performance by an Actor, 2006

1. Forest Whitaker, "The Last King of Scotland"
2. Peter O'Toole, "Venus"
3. Leonardo DiCaprio, "Blood Diamond"
4. Leonardo DiCaprio, "The Departed"
5. Ryan Gosling, "Half Nelson"
6. Will Smith, "Pursuit of Happyness"

DiCaprio in this case would have been nominated twice, with Smith missing a nomination by one slot. However, because of this rule, the following happens.

4. Leonardo DiCaprio, "The Departed"
5. 4. Ryan Gosling, "Half Nelson"
6. 5. Will Smith, "Pursuit of Happyness

I suppose I'm just having trouble seeing why one branch would take the precaution and the other wouldn't.

They definitely are crazy. I don't know what it has to do with their predictions though.

Oooops! Sorry I dropped a few predix from the chart. Fixed now.

quote:

Why does the acting branch take this precaution, then, while the branch in charge of 'Best Directing' does not? Isn't it possible that Soderbergh's own nomination for "Erin Brockovich" could have accrued enough votes to ultimately lose him his "Traffic" win? Obviously, because he did win, it didn't hurt him; the possibility of such a thing happening, though, is still there.

It's not just directing. Every other category has the possibility of someone getting multiple nominations, which of course happens regularly.

The difference, and the reason that the acting category is different, is that in every other category it is possible for more than one person to have contributed to the achievement being nominated. For acting, it is impossible for more than one person to give a single performance in one film. Thus, different rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Tom O'Neil:
Oooops! Sorry I dropped a few predix from the chart. Fixed now.

Thanks sugar! They make more sense now!

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
It's not just directing. Every other category has the possibility of someone getting multiple nominations, which of course happens regularly.

Yes, Sean, I know that. I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, even, that (and I quote) "I would be able to blame the 'spreading the wealth' idea moreso, if every other category, Director included, were not allowed dual nods."

That's my point.

quote:

The difference, and the reason that the acting category is different, is that in every other category it is possible for more than one person to have contributed to the achievement being nominated. For acting, it is impossible for more than one person to give a single performance in one film. Thus, different rules.

That still makes no sense to me. Sure, two men can edit a film together. So what? Why should Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet and the like be (and I mean it when I say) penalized for giving more than one Oscar-worthy performance? Yes, Winslet gave one performance in "The Reader;" she alone. But did she not also give an entirely different, equally (if not more) applauded in "Revolutionary Road?"

You mentioned the official name of Best Director was Best Directing in a Film. Well the official name of the Best Actress category is Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role. If someone gives more than one performance, shouldn't they be given more than one opportunity to be nominated in the same category. After all, Roger Deakins is but one man, and yet he is allowed a Cinematography nomination for both "No Country for Old Men" and "Assassination of Jesse James..." in the same year. How, I ask, is that fair?

I get your point about 'teams,' Sean, I just don't agree that the rules should be the way they are.

They are also likely reflecting the preferences of the branches. If actors wanted to be nominated for more than one, they'd let the Academy know. If other branches wanted to limit it to one (very difficult, since there often are different combinations of people nominated), they'd also let them know.

For me it is a rational and acceptable, if not perfect, system. I have far bigger issues with many other aspects of how they nominate and vote.

They are understating Swank's chances. And 4 out of 6 for Streep is plain silly, when Mirren and Mulligan get 6 out of 6.

That is just plain weird. I know we're not supposed to use this word but Streep is a LOCK.

Can't believe Cornish has still a lot of mentions when in fact her movie is forgotten as each day passes.

Well, I see noone picked 2012 for Best Picture, the way Lou Lumenick did.

To Tom, do you know if Mr. 0sborne will continue throwing his own hand-in on these for this *OSCAR year or not?

Please let me know either way?

Thank You

(P.S. I'm sure by now you know of the most recent "EW mag" & it also took an early look at the leading contenders)

Note to those with digital cable.

Just located a fairly new-(to my knowledge) station of everything trailers,etc

Virtually every release either playing now or coming soon is shown!

quote:

Originally posted by Jeffrey L.:
To Tom, do you know if Mr. 0sborne will continue throwing his own hand-in on these for this *OSCAR year or not?

Please let me know either way?

Thank You

(P.S. I'm sure by now you know of the most recent "EW mag" & it also took an early look at the leading contenders)