Snubbed by the SAGS
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Jacki Weaver
Aussie Stud — 15 years ago(December 16, 2010 06:29 AM)
Just when I thought she had picked up traction with the GGs, she got snubbed by the SAGS. The SAGS are a good indication of who is going to win the Oscars as a lot of the voters are also the same people (acting community).
This really sucks, I can't see her getting an Oscar nomination if she couldn't even get a SAG nomination. And if she did get an Oscar nomination, the likelihood of her winning an Oscar is small considering who wins the SAG. While the GGs weren't enchanted with the True Grit remake, it appears the SAGS were, with Hailee Steinfeld taking Jacki's place. -
Cienna — 15 years ago(December 16, 2010 04:07 PM)
Agree. This is definitely a blow. She still has a chance of getting in but her chances of winning are now obviously a long shot.
Putting Hailee Steinfield in as a supporting actress is, by all reports, category fraud. Perhaps the Oscars will play fair. -
Aussie Stud — 15 years ago(December 16, 2010 06:39 PM)
I think they pulled this maneuver a few years ago when Jennifer Connelly was put in the "Supporting Actress" category for A Beautiful Mind when she had just as much screen time as Russell Crowe. But for her to compete in the leading actress category was too much competition, so they put her against the likes of Helen Mirren and Maggie Smith from Gosford Park.
What shocks me more is that the industry buys it and they voted her for the win. I mean, as an actor, wouldn't you be annoyed by the campaign shenanigans and category hogging by film studios that you would just vote for someone who deserved to win for that category? How Jennifer Connelly won is beyond me. It should have gone to Helen Mirren that year who truly was part of a supporting cast. -
melwyn — 15 years ago(December 21, 2010 11:34 PM)
I've never had much time for the SAGs to be honest, and the Connelly-type shenanigans are the reason. It is the actors' union mutual backslapping fest, so I take their "objectivity" with a grain of salt
I just want sausages and mash and a bit of cake. Not twigs fried in honey or a donkey in a coffin! -
don-lockwood — 15 years ago(December 25, 2010 04:58 PM)
I think you're forgetting the fact that the SAG doesn't take as well to category fraud. Jennifer Connelly was actually nominated for lead by the SAGs and lost up against Halle Berry before being "corrected" by the Oscars. (And really, even though she was the lead actress, she w2000as arguably a supporting actor to Russell Crowe he was the sole lead for most of the film. She most certainly did NOT have as much screen time as he did.)
So does Jacki Weaver still get in? Am I the only one skeptical Mila Kunis will get a nod? -
lkpp — 15 years ago(December 28, 2010 06:17 PM)
I wouldn
t worry too much bout not getting nominated next year . The Academy Awards do tend to correct the SAG,s mistakes but nominating those they had left out. She has won a few awards already and is getting nominated pretty much in every critics awards and getting a Golden Globe nom does help too. I do feel she will get nominated but winning, i doubt that will happen being an unknown and especially being a non american will come into effect. Just have to hope thatthere are some voters in the Academy that will vote for the performance and not cause of popularity or what country there from. I havent seen any of the favoured nominees likely to get nominated so can`t say if Jacki,s performance is better than all the rest. Melissa Leo,s performance in The Fighter is apparently similar to Jacki,s i reckon voters would sway more to her probably cause she is more known to voters and cause she,s american.