complete random thought; maybe someone has already posted it.

But can jake squeeze by if clooney and giammatti cancel each other out?

If Matt Dillon doesn't cancel him out.

Leaving Hurt for the win? :O

oh my.. what a stressful category...

Syriana wasn't universally well-received either, it did fare better with critics to be sure but the reaction was decidedly mixed, a love it or hate it type of response. I wish I had seen Syriana now that Clooney is becoming a major contender, but is he really that good? And I wonder why is he being nominated for that and not Good Night & Good Luck? As for snubs, they're pretty much inevitable, and kudos to you if MacLaine gets in there but I think McDormand will knock someone out or the snub will come in another category.



He could also split the vote...surely some people will vote for him in director, picture and/or screenplay and when they come along Supporting Actor decide to give it to someone else. But again, I think it's impossible to know what's going through their heads until the awards are given out. Your reasoning makes sense to me but that doesn't mean the majority are going to think that way.



Ok. Hopefully he produces more successful films next year but that's another topic.



A lot of people would disagree with that, I found her annoying in The 40 Year Old Virgin and inconsequential & dull in Capote (and I usually love her) but lots of people loved her in those movies. And while I wasn't impressed with her all that much I think someone like Russo or Aniston would have put in lesser performances, especially in Capote. Point being, if we were going by who had the biggest year in Supporting Actress (in terms of box office, critical reception, etc), it would be her, hence the comparison to Clooney. But she is not a frontrunner and may fall out of the race because she doesn't have one role that really makes her shine and her feat isn't all that remarkable, unlike Clooney.



I can't personally say if Clooney has the edge in terms of the best performance, but I thought Giamatti really stood out in Cinderella Man, more so than Crowe. And it does speak to the power of the performance considering he's still in the race despite the movie being an early release and falling out of contention in every other category. However politics do play a role to be sure, if for some odd reason Renee Zellweger had not won for Cold Mountain she would certainly be in the Supporting Actress race this year for her performance in Cinderella Man.



Maybe I still can't decide if I think Giamatti or Clooney will win at this point.

I consider Gyllenhaal to be the dark horse in this category, and William Hurt if he can get nominated. What hurts Jake is that his performance didn't get nearly as much acclaim as those of Ledger & Williams, and if the Academy wants to give Brokeback an acting award the easiest choice would be Michelle Williams.

but it would be really weird if Jake wins and Heath doesn't...

I agree. I really don't think JAke has that big of a chance. The gold is still between Clooney and Giamatti with Clooney probably having the upper hand. That's an interesting contest since both are different ways of make-up awards.

To defend Giamatti...

1) The snubbing effect will come into play. People thought he should've made it for Sideways and Splendor, when they see him as a final 5 nom they'll have sympathetic feelings. I mean look at how many people here are cheering for him, just because of his past work. People LOVE Paul Giamatti. Yeah, George Clooney is the bigger "star", he's cooler, and he gets invited to more parties. But Giamatti is the dorky and shy underdog. In all sports movies, everyone always cheers for the dorky and shy underdog over the big jock.

2) If George picks up Screenplay, it's competition over. They'll give him the Oscar for that, and that will be his due. Paul takes Best Supporting.

3) As a whole, people like Cinderella Man more than Syriana. The latter is a film that had some of the worst WOM of the year.

That's not entirely true - lots of people pretended to like Syriana so they wouldn't appear too stupid...

I thought Syriana was much better than Cinderella Man.

I don't think William Hurt will be nominated. I do think Jake is in the running, but is behind both Giamatti and Clooney. He is also behind Terrence Howard, if he gets nominated.

Shack, I guess it's the best thing that could have happened when you supported Giamatti, because you are always wrong, and
sadly, you base your predictions solely on saying the opposite of what I say because you love arguing with me for whatever reason and you can't stop yourself. If it's another reason, then tell me why you made those horrible predictions for the Golden Globes, I about choked when you said it was a predictable show, considering your predictions were so far off and uninformed. I think you need to spend a little less time making predictions based on being the opposite of what I say, and you should just sit in silence for about 3 years and listen and observe. Try to learn instead of trying to teach, because you have made one mistep after another with your predictions because you don't know when to listen.

This is George Clooney's Oscar. If you know so much about Giamatti's snub and consider it to be the deal breaker, then what of Clooney's snub. I'm guessing that you didn't realize that he won the Best Actor at the Golden Globes for O' Brother, Where Art Thou in 2000, yet he wasn't nominated for an Oscar, he was SNUBBED?!?! I guess you're saying they owe Clooney first, since they snubbed him first? Well, obviously you didn't know that bit of info before you started flapping your gums. See, that's what I mean when I tell you that you need to know when to listen and say nothing. If you had done that this time, you wouldn't have just got another weak argument shot down. I won't even go into your comments about Syriana's word of mouth, because I'm not dealing with any made up "facts". Seriously, why don't you go bump that King Kong thread again and tell us all how you've got a good feeling about it's chances like you already did once.

You're getting argumentative for the sake of it again, Shack, as evidenced by constantly posting and trying to defend whatever side I'm against. Your GG predictions (5 out of 13 right) were made to go against my picks. You decided to chime in and try to get into an argument with me about Brokeback Mountain's box office just today, like you were having withdrawls while I was away. Weren't you issued a warning because you kept doing that?

I can't make people comprehend exactly how important Clooney's status as a producer is. That's up to the individual to recognize for themselves. I find it hard to consider anything from anybody that was entertaining thoughts that Walk the Line would lose to Pride and Prejudice at the GG, because that shows someone to have much bias, and if somebody shows that much of it, I tend to classify all of their posts that way. Having objectivity is the only way to predict these nominations and winners, which is how I always look at things, from an objective perspective. If I let my biases get the better of me instead of being objective and clear thinking, I'd be running around like a chicken with it's head cut off making a new prediction everyday, too, and I'd look just as ridiculous doing it.

Did the BAFTA snub for Giamatti while giving Clooney TWO seperate nominations (twice the chance to win), and while giving multiple noms for Crash actors, open anybody's eyes to what I've been trying to say about this being Clooney's win? That was a SNUB!

They'll do everything they can to get Giamatti in, but after that, Clooney will walk away with the award. Not only has he earned it more with his career achievements, but with the performances that are nominated, too. Clooney's GG win made for good press. He's a movie star. Giamatti is not. He's represented all over the map with two different films. Giamatti is getting in by default, not because the work was anything special.

Clooney's already getting the big media coverage, not Giamatti.



Did anybody happen to see who made the cover of EW's Oscar issue this year?



Face it, folks. That Giamatti stuff was never going to happen. He'll get a nom, but the Oscar goes to George Clooney for Syriana (and Goodnight, and Good Luck, and for becoming the new golden boy at Warner Bros., etc...) Is anybody really seriously considering Giamatti anymore?

If Clooney wins for Syriana while he's nominated 3 times for Good Night and Good Luck, that would be a tragedy.

Mav, my post had absolutely nothing to do with you. I was commentating on the Giamatti vs Clooney situation. So why do you have to go into full-page essay rants everytime I say something? And I can't believe you're actually using silly Globes predictions as your standing ground, ones that were simply for fun and for whim.

As for the Brokeback Mountain comment I made, I was(like that entire thread) being sarcastic. It was a poke at roid's earlier spin-plan comments, and at the previous Kong euphoria we had last month. I even included a [s]Kong[/s] at the end of the paragraph, just in case anybody slow like you didn't get it. And I suppose that didn't even work. The fact that you'd think I was trying to argue with you, proves that you are looking for things against me and that you have absolutely no sense of humor.

And you talk about bias Oscar statements? In this year's race alone, you've made comments such as:

1) Joaquin Phoenix is a lock for the Best Actor win

2) Walk the Line is the frontrunner for Best Picture

3) Syriana is(was) ahead of Munich

4) King Kong never had any BP chance in the Oscar race

5) George Clooney has it locked up, Paul Giamatti isn't even being considered anymore.

...

If that's not biased, I don't know what is.

Your GG predictions sucked because a) you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to these predictions, or b) you base your predictions by saying the opposite of what I predict. Either way, you're nobody that comes across as an informed and objective person.



Well, as soon as I get done typing this reply, I am going to hit the report feature and have a talk with the mods and admins about it, and I'm sure they'll see that you do indeed have some self control issues. Perhaps another warning will wake you up that it's best for you to quit following me around in discussions...

I laugh when something's funny, not when you attempt humor. Your comments in this thread and your comments directly following my first post in days that commented on something I had just said proves that you just can't control yourself, so the admins can deal with you or I will.



Well, he did win the GG.



And it WAS when I said that.



I was dead on accurate with my Munich comments from day one, and here we are seeing the fruits of that call playing out. It's also funny that Syriana is indeed going to win more Oscars. I'd call that ahead.



um...is there a point in here? This situation happened EXACTLY like I said it would, and KK was never considered more than I claimed it to be. It's just a popcorn movie that'll get some tech attention, as I always said.



And this is true.



So it's biased for me to go against my favorite director (Steven Spielberg).. Everyone but you knows that he's my favorite, but you're uninformed once again, and try to make points that blow up in your face.

It's biased to know better than to think King Kong had a shot? That was wishful thinking on some people's part, not any kind of reality, and certainly not bias on my part, it was complete objectivity.

I use common sense a lot, too. I'm not expecting you to grasp the concept of that.

Like I said, it's high time you stopped trying to teach, as you obviously are not informed enough to do it. How many movies have you seen in 2005? You certainly saw a lot of shit and have seen very little of anything we are even talking about, so please spare everybody the act that you have some words of wisdom that we should listen to.

I'm still waiting for a reply about why you're not counting Clooney's snub, Mr. Expert. It just makes it look like you're quite clueless, just like your arguements about Walk the Line and Johnny Cash showed everyone.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a post of yours to report so maybe you'll get the hint to quit following me around and making comments directly after I say something.

You've got to be kidding me. How is that I'm the one who's followed you around in this situation, when you're the one who started this very argument. Also, you've just written two full-page essays of insults against me for almost no apparant reason. I came in here to talk about the Giamatti and Clooney situation, I didn't even address you. Last time I checked, that's not following you around. If you read our posts together, I think it's obvious that you're the one who needs the reporting, as always.

I don't want to even go through your post. It's pure idiocracy.

I'll make the point about bias though. Yes, Spielberg may be your favorite director. But Walk the Line and Syriana are your lovechildren. Everyone can see that you're much more favoured towards the latter two, everyone. You've always been saying that Syriana's trailer is better, you've made the Cinemania and Box-office predictions threads for each, you've had avatars regarding each one, etc. They've been your two most favoured movies of the last half of the year.

Christ, what a creepy little kid you are...

First, you seem to be reporting on my posting history as if you...follow me around and take notes. Please don't presume to tell everyone what my favorite films are based on your investigations of me.

You entered this thread to take opposition with me. THAT is why you "defended" Giamatti, as I was the one who was defending Clooney. Are you actually going to say that you defended Giamatti to those who were supporting him? You were clearly addressing me.

You jumped in and started repeating things from the other side, because you don't know this stuff well enough to do anything but that, and you showed your lack of even knowing what you were arguing about because you knew nothing about Clooney's past snub. If you had, the Giamatti snub wouldn't have been your focus.

Just like the Brokeback Mountain comments today. Clearly comments made that were directed toward me, something you were WARNED to stop.

Like I said, you need to concern yourself with LEARNING not TEACHING. Take that advice, because it's good advice for you.

Why can't everyone just accept that they have differing opinions.

Seriously, I'm laughing at myself for getting so worked up in the past. Everyone sees the world through their perspective. Reaching complete objectivity is impossible.

Or at least let t be and wait till the actual nods or wins are over with to rub it in people's faces

It's not impossible to reach a level of objectivity. There was a reason I was calling all that Kong talk nothing but fanboy ramblings, and that was because I was looking at it objectively.

That's why I just predicted that Giamatti will win the SAG, because when I look at it objectively, I see this as his push to get in, but once they have the chance to vote in the real show, Clooney will get their vote. It's just the way the cookie crumbles in these things.

Both Haggis and Clooney deserve to be individually rewarded for the Achievements that they had in 2005. Clooney is up for Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Haggis is up for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay. (we all assume they are going to be up for those)

Both films are expected to get quite a few noms.

They aren't expected to win anything major, if at all.

Each is up for 3 awards, and they aren't going to send either of those guys home without a consolation prize of their own. The only way to do that would be to give them each an award that they arguably deserve anyway. Clooney gets an Oscar (for supporting actor) Haggis gets an Oscar (for adapted screenplay), so both Crash and Good Night, and Good Luck win Oscars without Taking it away from the Best Picture and Best Director winners, Brokeback Mountain and Ang Lee.

Giamatti is just honored to be there, but when it comes to honoring the nominees, Clooney and Haggis are both in line with their hands out ahead of Paul Giamatti.

That is a very objective way of seeing the situation.

For christs sake, these people are professionals. They're job is to vote for the best performance, they aren't going to look at it and say "Well, George Clooney is also nominated for writing. Haggis is too. I don't know if I want to vote for Clooney here, because I might vote for him in writing. But if I vote for him in writing, he'll win over Haggis, and he has to win something? So..uh...I'm voting for Clooney because I'm not voting for him for writing because I'm voting for Haggis for writing because they both deserve something and that's the only way it works out."

Chances are, they'll vote for the best performance or best writing. Yes, they might not vote for supporting because they want to vote for writing for him or vice-versa, but they won't be thinking about Crash and Haggis when deciding on the BSA ballot. It doesn't work out that if two people are deserving, both will get one. No ser. There is a very good chance that either Haggis or Clooney could be snubbed completley.

Thank you for proving to the rest of the members that you are very new to this and don't understand the politics and are even denying that they exist because these people are professionals who vote for the best performance.

Did everyone get a good laugh at the above naive post?

Shack, learn, don't try to teach. You'll get much farther ahead in life and especially in the awards season.

There's politics, yes. But politics doesn't 100% dominate the whole decision progress. They're actually voting for the best you know. Steven Spielberg had an amazing year, as did Terrance Howard. They're still not going home with anythingggg.

Let's revamp the discussion...

So has Jake Gyllenhaal become the official dark horse?

Because I'm thinking so.

First (or maybe second, behind "babes always win") rule of the Oscars: pretty boys don´t win.

That said, if he wins I wouldn´t be in total shock now. Just hyperventilating a lot.

I still think this is the most interesting major category, one where I can see any of the nominees winning.

Giamatti & Clooney are the obvious frontrunners, and I would say Gyllenhaal is the major darkhorse at this point. But I could see either Hurt or Dillon pulling off the upset as well, if the Academy is really crazy about AHOV or Crash. It helps that they are their movies' only acting nominations, if Bello or another actor from Crash were nominated I don't think either would stand a chance.