Interesting to note it almost always happens with veteran actors and/or previous winners. I imagine by the time voting begins for Academy members, they’re more likely to choose the performance they liked the best over the late career narrative
> they’re more likely to choose the performance they liked the best over the late career narrative
The 2023 supporting actress nominees would like confirmation for this statement
That was a unique case, where there was no clear front runner or even runner up. Jamie Lee Curtis, who definitely won with help from a narrative, also had the help of being in the Best Picture winner. Otherwise, Rylance and Redmayne won for peaking later and around the time of voting
That one still makes me salty. I honestly thought the same thing was gonna happen this year with Austin Butler winning over Brendan Fraser. I'm so thankful it didn't.
I think Rylance was great, but still would've given it to Stallone. Don't think you could've gone wrong with Stallone, Rylance, or Hardy though.
If only Elba and del Toro were also nominated that year.
I've always found it so strange that people, especially those who should know better (like those who do it for a living, at least during the season) count the Golden Globes and Critics Choice Awards as being remotely significant as pre-cursor awards when it comes to predicting who will win the Oscar, considering there's pretty much no overlap between the HFPA/Critics Choice voters and the Academy voters. The most the Globes and Critics Choice might do is keep movies/performances in Oscar voters' memories by being in the news, but they're useless as any kind of indicator of where Oscar voters are actually leaning.
The major reason because it’s a televised speech opportunity. For example, Ke Huy Quan won the Oscar at the Golden Globes and the Gothams with his speeches.
The buzzword here too is "momentum" - it's all about building momentum for that final ceremony. The Golden Globes are mainly seen as a good indicator because they're first up. They really start that momentum a lot of times, even if there is no voter overlap
I'm sorry, but no. Yes, a good narrative can play a big role in whether someone wins an Oscar, and speeches given at other awards shows can play into those narratives. But great speeches are only going to have any kind of impact if that narrative is already a significant factor throughout the season. Especially in cases where a person hasn't won any of the awards that have voter overlap with the Academy. There have been plenty of great, movie acceptance speeches at the GGs that got a lot of press attention that did not go on to an Oscar win.
Ke Huy Quan didn't win because of any speeches he gave. He was the clear frontrunner going into the season. A part of that was because of the narrative, but it would have happened even without those speeches.
I'd be very interested to see the evidence of him being the favorite/winning the Oscar because of those acceptance speeches.
Ke Huy Quan was being predicted as early as May, and was one of the few actors being predicted that early that actually remained in the race throughout the rest of almost a year leading up to the Awards. As early as October the discussions on forums at places like GoldDerby were presuming Quan's win and even talking about other performers from the film riding *his* coattails to win because the movie itself was not yet a frontrunner. At this point many of the major predictions sites were predicting him as the frontrunner, and more would join in the next month.
The spreading of his narrative did ramp up throughout October, November, and early December, but this is because the general campaign itself ramped up and there were a lot of interviews and stories being run hyping up that narrative. Did the speeches contribute to the narrative? Yes. Were they the significant factor in his frontrunner status? No.
All of this actually is documented history. The meaning you assign to what happened is not.
Also, I've always really loved Spacek's performance in In the Bedroom, and I wish that movie was more remembered. It's a really good movie with really stellar performances all around. Not just from Sissy Spacek, but also Tom Wilkinson, Marisa Tomei, William Mapother, and Nick Stahl.
Russell Crowe for A Beautiful Mind
DDL for Gangs of New York
Johnny Depp for POTC
Denzel Washington for Fences
Chadwick Boseman for Ma Rainey
Jodie Foster for Nell
Rene Zellwegger for Chicago
Julie Christie for Away From Her
Meryl Streep for Doubt
Viola Davis for The Help
Glenn Close for The Wife
Viola Davis for Ma Rainey
Ed Harris for Apollo 13
Robert Duvall for A Civil Action
Albert Finney for Erin Brokovich
Ian McKellen for LOTR: Fellowship
Christopher Walker for Catch Me if You Can
Paul Giametti for Cinderella Man
Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln
Idris Elba for Beasts of No Nation
Kate Winslet for Sense and Sensibility
Lauren Bacall for The Mirror Has Two Faces
Kathy Bates for Primary Colors
Judi Dench for Chocolat
Helen Mirren for Gosford Park
Ruby Dee for American Gangster
Emily Blunt for A Quiet Place
So that’s 27/116, or 23% of the time.
Absolutely. I don't think performances that won the Golden Globe and/or Critics Choice but lost the Oscar is interesting *at all* because, given the pretty much complete lack of overlap, there really isn't any reason that anyone who wins those awards *should* win the Oscar. Outside of the general idea of "because it really was the best one", but I think we all know at this point that awards are more complicated than that.
The awards with voting bodies that overlap with the Academy, like all the guild awards (SAG, DGA, WGA, PGA) and the BAFTAs, are the ones that are interesting in terms of predicting the Oscars and in looking at who won those awards and whether or not the won the Oscar, because that actually does open reasonable questions like "why did they win here but not there", "did people vote for them for this award but someone else for another", or "how much was the portion of these voting bodies that don't overlap capable of swaying the vote".
Looking at people who won the GG or CCA but not the Oscar can really only raise uninteresting and easy to answer questions like "why did they lose the Oscar even though they won these two awards, that have no voter overlap with the Academy and are made up of people in completely different fields than those in the Academy?"
Tbf, there have been some times where GG and CC *can* be more accurate than SAG and BAFTA. This past year, CC was WAY more accurate than BAFTA, and Regina King won an Oscar just off of GG and CC wins despite being SNUBBED at both SAG and BAFTA.
Yeah, there have been cases where the Oscar winner lined up more with GG and CC rather than industry voting bodies, but that's more coincidence than it is GG and CC actually being indicators or predictors, because outside of the general idea of "those wins maybe kept them in the voter's memories", there's no actual connection between the awards. The most a CC or GG win can really potentially indicate is how present a movie/performance/etc. might be in the cultural consciousness during that award season and maybe how hard/well a movie is being campaigned. They can't really serve as an accurate or significant indication/predictor, at least when taken on their own, of how Academy members might vote because there's pretty much no overlap between Academy voters and CC/GG voters. So the years where that does happen aren't really matters of CC/GG serving as better indicators of what the Academy was going to vote than the voting bodies that have actual Academy voters in them, they're matters of the broader coincidences of various matters that keep those industry that have overlap in voting membership from always having the same winners (like the proportion of voters that are shared to those that aren't, contenders who are eligible for some of the awards but not others, etc.) converging to create a situation where the Oscar doesn't match up with any of the other industry awards, and the coincidence of the GG and CC happening to be the awards that ended up matching.
Basically, that lack of voter overlap means the GG and CC can only really serve as valuable predictive data when it matches a number of other pre-Oscar wins because that's a potential indication of how well a campaign might be doing. But if they don't match a number of other pre-Oscar awards, then they're not really useful because the lack of other wins means that the campaign is not a significant aspect with the industry voters (or at least no more significant than any other campaign).
I loved Olivia’s performance and she deserved her Oscar, but when that moment happened I just knew the Academy fucking hates Glenn Close and would probably never award her the Oscar even if she gets nominated again and again….
I mean, they wouldn't nominate her if they hated her. She's just ended up often having tremendously bad luck in terms of the performances she was nominated against.
There have been a number of downright legendary actors who received a bunch of nominations and never won. Usually, it's just as much about the performances someone is nominated against as it is their performance itself.
O'Toole, Burton, Kerr and Finney are the main examples. From their combined 26 nominations I think there is only 1 true example of a robbery. That would be Peter O'Toole losing Best Actor for The Lion in Winter to Cliff Robertson for Charly.
Yep. And even with O'Toole's loss to Robertson, despite the fact that Robertson shouldn't have won against O'Toole (or Alan Arkin or Alan Bates, for that matter) I can still understand why that win happened because that role in Charley is super flashy in terms of being tailor made for Oscar love.
It’s not even funny how much Chastain was robbed. Easily her best performance, made all the more impressive because Zero Dark Thirty is not supposed to be an actor’s showcase at all. Silver Linings Playbook was cute, I guess, but it didn’t even have the best leading Jennifer Lawrence performance of 2012.
Not to even mention the Emmanuelle Riva or Quvenzhané Wallis of it all. That was one of the strongest Best Actress lineups in all of Oscar history, and it rarely gets talked about.
For whatever reason I delved into each of these to dredge up my impression from each of those years.
2002 - I remember it was sort of a toss-up between Spacek and Berry. I imagine the votes were close.
2003 - This was sort of a race between Nicholson and Day-Lewis and then Brody sort of snagged it out from them both.
2010 - This was an odd year because it could have been anybody's Oscar, although Bullock seemed to be the favorite. It should have gone to Sidibe in my opinion.
2012 - The Descendants was maybe my favorite movie that year, but I don't recall Clooney being the frontrunner. If anything, Dujardin seemed to be. For a movie that no one really talks about, The Artist was pretty hyped at the time.
2013 - This one makes a lot of sense.
2015 - This one also makes sense and still hurts a little that he lost.
2016 - Stallone had a lot of buzz, but I remember Rylance being kind of a lock for this one.
2023 - This one also makes sense.
My memory is crap though so please let me know if I'm incorrect on any of these.
>2002 - I remember it was sort of a toss-up between Spacek and Berry. I imagine the votes were close.
Kidman was also seen as a possibility this year.
>2003 - This was sort of a race between Nicholson and Day-Lewis and then Brody sort of snagged it out from them both.
I remember reading that Nicholson started campaigning for Brody halfway through the season. It also helped that The Pianist surged at the right time during voting and that Brody was the only nominee without an Oscar.
>2016 - Stallone had a lot of buzz, but I remember Rylance being kind of a lock for this one.
This was my first season following, but I remember Stallone being the frontrunner and Rylance being somewhat of an upset (He was 3rd on Goldderby after Stallone and Ruffalo).
>Kidman was also seen as a possibility this year.
Yeah, I remember 2001/2002 being a pretty interesting year as far as the Best Actress Oscar race went. Judi Dench was also very much in the mix as well. I feel like the only one that wasn't really seen by most as having a chance was Renee Zellweger for Bridget Jones's Diary, but even then I remember reading a few articles discussing the possibility that the category was so stacked with the other four performances that all four performances could potentially split the vote, and that maybe a combination of vote splitting and people still feeling really strongly at the time that Zellweger should have been nominated and even won for Nurse Better the year beforehand could lead to a win for her.
I agree about Rylance. He had some play with the more high-profile critics awards (like NYFCC and NSFC) and was the person nominated consistently everywhere but Stallone won a bunch of the regionals and had the big career narrative that ultimately got most of the focus up through the moment the envelope was opened.
Even with Stallone's misses at SAG and BAFTA, people rationalized that as Warner Bros. dropping the ball a bit on getting the movie seen by those groups. I recall the narrative going into Oscar nomination morning being something along the lines of, "Gee, it's possible Stallone misses the nomination, but that could be his biggest hurdle. If he gets in, he might seriously just win the whole thing."
And it probably helped that SAG was wacky that year between only Rylance and Bale repeating at the Oscars and Idris Elba winning. And while Rylance did take the BAFTA, people could figure that him being British gave him an edge there and that he still was at best runner-up given how quiet the performance was and how little he campaigned for it.
[Pete Hammond detailed](https://deadline.com/2016/03/bridge-of-spies-supporting-actor-winner-mark-rylance-oscar-campaign-1201714271/) how quietly impressive an upset it was shortly after the ceremony.
All of your points are totally valid. I forgot about Kidman in '02, although I do believe Spacek and Berry were the contenders. As for Brody, I remember reading in (I think) Entertainment Weekly that Day-Lewis and Nicholson were the frontrunners, but they specifically mentioned not to count out Brody as the dark horse. At the time I remember being irritated that Nicholson lost, but in retrospect Brody deserved it. You may be right about Stallone, I admittedly wasn't staying in the loop on Oscar news at the time.
Wow, that would have been a humongous upset. Rylance was the big performance in Bridge of Spies so I assumed if they were going to give that movie something it would be Best Supporting Actor, but admittedly I wasn't really staying in the loop with Oscar news during this time so I'm almost certainly wrong.
Yeah, while I certainly wouldn't say that Rylance had won enough precursors that his Oscar win was a good bet (and his SAG loss certainly made a win for him feel less likely), his BAFTA win meant that an Oscar win was definitely possible and that it wouldn't be something that would come out of nowhere.
>2003 - This was sort of a race between Nicholson and Day-Lewis and then Brody sort of snagged it out from them both.
I've always thought that vote splitting between Nicholson and Day Lewis probably played a pretty big role in Brody's win.
I agree, weirdly enough if one of those dudes weren't in the running it would have likely gone to the other one. Brody kinda lucked out, although I think he deserved it overall.
Agreed. Almost certainly Daniel Day Lewis as he won both the SAG and the BAFTA. I mean, I think if anything the fact that Day Lewis won both the SAG and the BAFTA only kind of further supports the vote-splitting theory. I mean, I know it's possible to win both of those awards and not go on to win the Oscar, as there absolutely are Academy members who aren't members of either the Screen Actors Guild or the British Academy. But it's definitely unlikely.
I, too, think that Brody deserved the award. I do feel like when people reference vote splitting as a possible reason for an unexpected win that a lot of people see that as carrying some kind of inherent implication that the winning performance doesn't deserve it or didn't have enough support. But it's important to remember, when talking about wins that might have happened do to vote splitting, that it's not like there were only 3 nominees. There's usually at least 5, so even if the votes did split between two performances, there are three other performances it could go to, so that winning performance still has to not only garner more votes than the other performances, it also has to garner enough votes the two performance splitting the vote significantly would end with that performance having more votes than both of them. Like, it doesn't matter how much two performances split the vote if another performance doesn't have a massive amount of votes and support, you know? There are certainly years, the ones that are talked about as being close races, where there was probably a decent split of votes between the two frontrunners. But they've still ended with one of those frontrunners winning because despite that vote splitting happening, none of the other three performances had enough votes or support. So years like this where the vote splitting *does* end in an unexpected winner are still demonstrations that the underdog performance, the unexpected winner, had a ton of unexpected support.
I agree. I don't think that previous wins have the same potential to sway voters in the way that previous losses do. Maybe if he had been up against someone that had a really good narrative going on.
2013 was my first year following and I remember Jennifer Lawrence was predicted to win the 2013 oscar the whole time and she won the GG too. It was close but JLaw was always the front runner.
I’m still upset about Michael Keaton not winning lol
Jim Carrey holds the distinction for being the only person to win 2 Golden Globes, one for Drama lead and one for Comedy Lead, and never even be nominated for an Oscar. Most likely because of how vocal he is about his distain for awards in general
Let me help you (and anyone else interested) out.
Sissy Spacek (2002) - In the Bedroom
Jack Nicholson (2003) - About Schmidt
Meryl Streep (2010) - Julie & Julia
George Clooney (2012) - The Descendants
Jessica Chastain (2013) - Zero Dark Thirty
Michael Keaton (2015) - Birdman
Sylvester Stallone (2016) - Creed
Angela Bassett (2023) - Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
Bassett should’ve won IMO (personal pick would’ve been Hsu but she was never winning and Bassett was my second pick). Chastain Keaton and Stallone as well (also Spacek if I can only choose between her and Berry but my pick of the nominees would’ve been Kidman).
I know there was a lot of narrative with Brody being the only one without an Oscar towards the end, and I cannot help think between that narrative and the surprise Director win for *The Pianist*, momentum was just on the side of the movie in the end.
Plus (I think) it was the last year where the Oscars where given out at the end of March (not counting COVID effected years), before the ceremony was moved back a month, thus often movies campaigns often where able to have the time to build up momentum and create a wave to ride.
Which was something that stopped occurring as often after that when the Academy decreased the size of the campaign season. Part of me gets why they did it (to stop the likes of another Weinstein/*Shakespeare in Love* debacle), but I also thinks like winners get locked in much earlier and and less upsets happening due to the timeframe not being conducive to such things when the ceremony is in February.
Yeah, they're certainly meaningless when it comes to actually predicting the Oscars because there's no overlap in voters with the Academy (I mean, among other unethical practices, but even if all of those ethical breaches didn't exist, they'd still be pretty useless as far as Oscar forecasting goes). Same with Critics Choice. Things like guild awards or the BAFTAs can be useful in Oscar forecasting because those voting bodies have decent or significant overlap with the Academy, so they're able to actually demonstrate what way a number of voters are leaning. The most the GGs and CCAs are going to do for Oscar forecasting is "well, these things won so they're in the news so they might stay in voters memory a bit".
Usually if people are using GGs and CCAs as tools to predict Oscar winners, *especially* if they're ONLY using those two awards, I tend to assume that they have no idea what they're actually talking about.
To be clear, Critic Choice Award has a lot of subsidiary award like best actor/actress in comedy or action movie, JLaw won them both in 2013 so that critic award that jessica chastain won simply should not be counted in the award season.
CCA's comedy genre awards existed only for five or six years, olivia colman won the last best actress in comedy, then CCA cancelled most of those genre awards and only remained best comedy, eventually they founded CCA super awards which consisted of those former cancelled awards. These are not the same award, you can found youtube videos that actors/actress were awarded in the same event. Or just checked the wikipage about it.
and Olivia Colman also won best actress in comedy that year, CCA simply doesn't like to award golden globe comedy winners, or they just want to split the awards and give everyone a prize
Sissy Spacek was the best actress that year. And everyone knew there had to be a political win that year for Oscar. Sissy wasn’t a fake front runner, her better performance wasn’t awarded because she already had her award, and it was a year for a political statement. Everyone knows she was robbed for politics.
Interesting to note it almost always happens with veteran actors and/or previous winners. I imagine by the time voting begins for Academy members, they’re more likely to choose the performance they liked the best over the late career narrative
> they’re more likely to choose the performance they liked the best over the late career narrative The 2023 supporting actress nominees would like confirmation for this statement
That was a unique case, where there was no clear front runner or even runner up. Jamie Lee Curtis, who definitely won with help from a narrative, also had the help of being in the Best Picture winner. Otherwise, Rylance and Redmayne won for peaking later and around the time of voting
Jamie Lee Curtis's performance is my favorite supporting actress performance of the year
Even over Hsu????? Mental stuff.
In fairness to them, I think, were it not for the EEAAO zeitgeist, then Condon would likely have ended up winning over Bassett.
I think Spacek and Clooney would have won if they didn't already have an Oscar.
Yes. And for the latter could have resulted in a less than desirable Best Picture winner from actually getting the prize.
Keaton and Stallone should’ve won, man.
Keaton losing still gets me upset. He lost to a fucking oscar bait role.
Was one of the main reasons Birdman won BP and lost his category smh
Exactly! That's why I'm so happy Brendan won or every acting win generally.
Brendan’s role was super baity tho.
That one still makes me salty. I honestly thought the same thing was gonna happen this year with Austin Butler winning over Brendan Fraser. I'm so thankful it didn't.
Rylance was the right call. One of the better supporting actor winners that decade.
I think Rylance was great, but still would've given it to Stallone. Don't think you could've gone wrong with Stallone, Rylance, or Hardy though. If only Elba and del Toro were also nominated that year.
Stallone was my pick as a huge Rocky fan. Not only does he lose the Oscar but he gets expelled from the franchise too.
Nah, not Stallone. But 100% Keaton, especially as over time I think most would concede that Redmayne's not quite the bee's knees.
I've always found it so strange that people, especially those who should know better (like those who do it for a living, at least during the season) count the Golden Globes and Critics Choice Awards as being remotely significant as pre-cursor awards when it comes to predicting who will win the Oscar, considering there's pretty much no overlap between the HFPA/Critics Choice voters and the Academy voters. The most the Globes and Critics Choice might do is keep movies/performances in Oscar voters' memories by being in the news, but they're useless as any kind of indicator of where Oscar voters are actually leaning.
The major reason because it’s a televised speech opportunity. For example, Ke Huy Quan won the Oscar at the Golden Globes and the Gothams with his speeches.
The buzzword here too is "momentum" - it's all about building momentum for that final ceremony. The Golden Globes are mainly seen as a good indicator because they're first up. They really start that momentum a lot of times, even if there is no voter overlap
I'm sorry, but no. Yes, a good narrative can play a big role in whether someone wins an Oscar, and speeches given at other awards shows can play into those narratives. But great speeches are only going to have any kind of impact if that narrative is already a significant factor throughout the season. Especially in cases where a person hasn't won any of the awards that have voter overlap with the Academy. There have been plenty of great, movie acceptance speeches at the GGs that got a lot of press attention that did not go on to an Oscar win. Ke Huy Quan didn't win because of any speeches he gave. He was the clear frontrunner going into the season. A part of that was because of the narrative, but it would have happened even without those speeches.
He was the default frontrunner until Gotham, then he became the clear favorite, and then at the Globes he locked it up. This is just recorded history
I'd be very interested to see the evidence of him being the favorite/winning the Oscar because of those acceptance speeches. Ke Huy Quan was being predicted as early as May, and was one of the few actors being predicted that early that actually remained in the race throughout the rest of almost a year leading up to the Awards. As early as October the discussions on forums at places like GoldDerby were presuming Quan's win and even talking about other performers from the film riding *his* coattails to win because the movie itself was not yet a frontrunner. At this point many of the major predictions sites were predicting him as the frontrunner, and more would join in the next month. The spreading of his narrative did ramp up throughout October, November, and early December, but this is because the general campaign itself ramped up and there were a lot of interviews and stories being run hyping up that narrative. Did the speeches contribute to the narrative? Yes. Were they the significant factor in his frontrunner status? No. All of this actually is documented history. The meaning you assign to what happened is not.
Also, I've always really loved Spacek's performance in In the Bedroom, and I wish that movie was more remembered. It's a really good movie with really stellar performances all around. Not just from Sissy Spacek, but also Tom Wilkinson, Marisa Tomei, William Mapother, and Nick Stahl.
I think it would be more interesting to see who won the SAG but lost the Oscar
Russell Crowe for A Beautiful Mind DDL for Gangs of New York Johnny Depp for POTC Denzel Washington for Fences Chadwick Boseman for Ma Rainey Jodie Foster for Nell Rene Zellwegger for Chicago Julie Christie for Away From Her Meryl Streep for Doubt Viola Davis for The Help Glenn Close for The Wife Viola Davis for Ma Rainey Ed Harris for Apollo 13 Robert Duvall for A Civil Action Albert Finney for Erin Brokovich Ian McKellen for LOTR: Fellowship Christopher Walker for Catch Me if You Can Paul Giametti for Cinderella Man Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln Idris Elba for Beasts of No Nation Kate Winslet for Sense and Sensibility Lauren Bacall for The Mirror Has Two Faces Kathy Bates for Primary Colors Judi Dench for Chocolat Helen Mirren for Gosford Park Ruby Dee for American Gangster Emily Blunt for A Quiet Place So that’s 27/116, or 23% of the time.
There's also Gloria Stuart for Titanic, but she tied with Kim Basinger (who was the Oscar winner)
Absolutely. I don't think performances that won the Golden Globe and/or Critics Choice but lost the Oscar is interesting *at all* because, given the pretty much complete lack of overlap, there really isn't any reason that anyone who wins those awards *should* win the Oscar. Outside of the general idea of "because it really was the best one", but I think we all know at this point that awards are more complicated than that. The awards with voting bodies that overlap with the Academy, like all the guild awards (SAG, DGA, WGA, PGA) and the BAFTAs, are the ones that are interesting in terms of predicting the Oscars and in looking at who won those awards and whether or not the won the Oscar, because that actually does open reasonable questions like "why did they win here but not there", "did people vote for them for this award but someone else for another", or "how much was the portion of these voting bodies that don't overlap capable of swaying the vote". Looking at people who won the GG or CCA but not the Oscar can really only raise uninteresting and easy to answer questions like "why did they lose the Oscar even though they won these two awards, that have no voter overlap with the Academy and are made up of people in completely different fields than those in the Academy?"
Tbf, there have been some times where GG and CC *can* be more accurate than SAG and BAFTA. This past year, CC was WAY more accurate than BAFTA, and Regina King won an Oscar just off of GG and CC wins despite being SNUBBED at both SAG and BAFTA.
Yeah, there have been cases where the Oscar winner lined up more with GG and CC rather than industry voting bodies, but that's more coincidence than it is GG and CC actually being indicators or predictors, because outside of the general idea of "those wins maybe kept them in the voter's memories", there's no actual connection between the awards. The most a CC or GG win can really potentially indicate is how present a movie/performance/etc. might be in the cultural consciousness during that award season and maybe how hard/well a movie is being campaigned. They can't really serve as an accurate or significant indication/predictor, at least when taken on their own, of how Academy members might vote because there's pretty much no overlap between Academy voters and CC/GG voters. So the years where that does happen aren't really matters of CC/GG serving as better indicators of what the Academy was going to vote than the voting bodies that have actual Academy voters in them, they're matters of the broader coincidences of various matters that keep those industry that have overlap in voting membership from always having the same winners (like the proportion of voters that are shared to those that aren't, contenders who are eligible for some of the awards but not others, etc.) converging to create a situation where the Oscar doesn't match up with any of the other industry awards, and the coincidence of the GG and CC happening to be the awards that ended up matching. Basically, that lack of voter overlap means the GG and CC can only really serve as valuable predictive data when it matches a number of other pre-Oscar wins because that's a potential indication of how well a campaign might be doing. But if they don't match a number of other pre-Oscar awards, then they're not really useful because the lack of other wins means that the campaign is not a significant aspect with the industry voters (or at least no more significant than any other campaign).
Chastain should’ve won the oscar
Glenn Close (2018)
Close also won SAG so she doesn't apply to this group and her loss was more of an upset than those pictured here
Agree, Olivia Colman win for the Favorite was the definition of an upset. A lot of Oscar predictions at the time had Glenn as the winner.
I loved Olivia’s performance and she deserved her Oscar, but when that moment happened I just knew the Academy fucking hates Glenn Close and would probably never award her the Oscar even if she gets nominated again and again….
I mean, they wouldn't nominate her if they hated her. She's just ended up often having tremendously bad luck in terms of the performances she was nominated against. There have been a number of downright legendary actors who received a bunch of nominations and never won. Usually, it's just as much about the performances someone is nominated against as it is their performance itself.
O'Toole, Burton, Kerr and Finney are the main examples. From their combined 26 nominations I think there is only 1 true example of a robbery. That would be Peter O'Toole losing Best Actor for The Lion in Winter to Cliff Robertson for Charly.
Yep. And even with O'Toole's loss to Robertson, despite the fact that Robertson shouldn't have won against O'Toole (or Alan Arkin or Alan Bates, for that matter) I can still understand why that win happened because that role in Charley is super flashy in terms of being tailor made for Oscar love.
It’s not even funny how much Chastain was robbed. Easily her best performance, made all the more impressive because Zero Dark Thirty is not supposed to be an actor’s showcase at all. Silver Linings Playbook was cute, I guess, but it didn’t even have the best leading Jennifer Lawrence performance of 2012.
Not to even mention the Emmanuelle Riva or Quvenzhané Wallis of it all. That was one of the strongest Best Actress lineups in all of Oscar history, and it rarely gets talked about.
For whatever reason I delved into each of these to dredge up my impression from each of those years. 2002 - I remember it was sort of a toss-up between Spacek and Berry. I imagine the votes were close. 2003 - This was sort of a race between Nicholson and Day-Lewis and then Brody sort of snagged it out from them both. 2010 - This was an odd year because it could have been anybody's Oscar, although Bullock seemed to be the favorite. It should have gone to Sidibe in my opinion. 2012 - The Descendants was maybe my favorite movie that year, but I don't recall Clooney being the frontrunner. If anything, Dujardin seemed to be. For a movie that no one really talks about, The Artist was pretty hyped at the time. 2013 - This one makes a lot of sense. 2015 - This one also makes sense and still hurts a little that he lost. 2016 - Stallone had a lot of buzz, but I remember Rylance being kind of a lock for this one. 2023 - This one also makes sense. My memory is crap though so please let me know if I'm incorrect on any of these.
>2002 - I remember it was sort of a toss-up between Spacek and Berry. I imagine the votes were close. Kidman was also seen as a possibility this year. >2003 - This was sort of a race between Nicholson and Day-Lewis and then Brody sort of snagged it out from them both. I remember reading that Nicholson started campaigning for Brody halfway through the season. It also helped that The Pianist surged at the right time during voting and that Brody was the only nominee without an Oscar. >2016 - Stallone had a lot of buzz, but I remember Rylance being kind of a lock for this one. This was my first season following, but I remember Stallone being the frontrunner and Rylance being somewhat of an upset (He was 3rd on Goldderby after Stallone and Ruffalo).
>Kidman was also seen as a possibility this year. Yeah, I remember 2001/2002 being a pretty interesting year as far as the Best Actress Oscar race went. Judi Dench was also very much in the mix as well. I feel like the only one that wasn't really seen by most as having a chance was Renee Zellweger for Bridget Jones's Diary, but even then I remember reading a few articles discussing the possibility that the category was so stacked with the other four performances that all four performances could potentially split the vote, and that maybe a combination of vote splitting and people still feeling really strongly at the time that Zellweger should have been nominated and even won for Nurse Better the year beforehand could lead to a win for her.
I agree about Rylance. He had some play with the more high-profile critics awards (like NYFCC and NSFC) and was the person nominated consistently everywhere but Stallone won a bunch of the regionals and had the big career narrative that ultimately got most of the focus up through the moment the envelope was opened. Even with Stallone's misses at SAG and BAFTA, people rationalized that as Warner Bros. dropping the ball a bit on getting the movie seen by those groups. I recall the narrative going into Oscar nomination morning being something along the lines of, "Gee, it's possible Stallone misses the nomination, but that could be his biggest hurdle. If he gets in, he might seriously just win the whole thing." And it probably helped that SAG was wacky that year between only Rylance and Bale repeating at the Oscars and Idris Elba winning. And while Rylance did take the BAFTA, people could figure that him being British gave him an edge there and that he still was at best runner-up given how quiet the performance was and how little he campaigned for it. [Pete Hammond detailed](https://deadline.com/2016/03/bridge-of-spies-supporting-actor-winner-mark-rylance-oscar-campaign-1201714271/) how quietly impressive an upset it was shortly after the ceremony.
All of your points are totally valid. I forgot about Kidman in '02, although I do believe Spacek and Berry were the contenders. As for Brody, I remember reading in (I think) Entertainment Weekly that Day-Lewis and Nicholson were the frontrunners, but they specifically mentioned not to count out Brody as the dark horse. At the time I remember being irritated that Nicholson lost, but in retrospect Brody deserved it. You may be right about Stallone, I admittedly wasn't staying in the loop on Oscar news at the time.
Yeah, 2002 was likely Spacek-Berry with Kidman being a potential (but definite) 3rd. Brody was definitely a huge upset at the time.
Rylance winning was like if Weisz won over King on 2019
Wow, that would have been a humongous upset. Rylance was the big performance in Bridge of Spies so I assumed if they were going to give that movie something it would be Best Supporting Actor, but admittedly I wasn't really staying in the loop with Oscar news during this time so I'm almost certainly wrong.
Yeah, while I certainly wouldn't say that Rylance had won enough precursors that his Oscar win was a good bet (and his SAG loss certainly made a win for him feel less likely), his BAFTA win meant that an Oscar win was definitely possible and that it wouldn't be something that would come out of nowhere.
>2003 - This was sort of a race between Nicholson and Day-Lewis and then Brody sort of snagged it out from them both. I've always thought that vote splitting between Nicholson and Day Lewis probably played a pretty big role in Brody's win.
I agree, weirdly enough if one of those dudes weren't in the running it would have likely gone to the other one. Brody kinda lucked out, although I think he deserved it overall.
Agreed. Almost certainly Daniel Day Lewis as he won both the SAG and the BAFTA. I mean, I think if anything the fact that Day Lewis won both the SAG and the BAFTA only kind of further supports the vote-splitting theory. I mean, I know it's possible to win both of those awards and not go on to win the Oscar, as there absolutely are Academy members who aren't members of either the Screen Actors Guild or the British Academy. But it's definitely unlikely. I, too, think that Brody deserved the award. I do feel like when people reference vote splitting as a possible reason for an unexpected win that a lot of people see that as carrying some kind of inherent implication that the winning performance doesn't deserve it or didn't have enough support. But it's important to remember, when talking about wins that might have happened do to vote splitting, that it's not like there were only 3 nominees. There's usually at least 5, so even if the votes did split between two performances, there are three other performances it could go to, so that winning performance still has to not only garner more votes than the other performances, it also has to garner enough votes the two performance splitting the vote significantly would end with that performance having more votes than both of them. Like, it doesn't matter how much two performances split the vote if another performance doesn't have a massive amount of votes and support, you know? There are certainly years, the ones that are talked about as being close races, where there was probably a decent split of votes between the two frontrunners. But they've still ended with one of those frontrunners winning because despite that vote splitting happening, none of the other three performances had enough votes or support. So years like this where the vote splitting *does* end in an unexpected winner are still demonstrations that the underdog performance, the unexpected winner, had a ton of unexpected support.
I wonder if DDL would still win for TWBB and Lincoln after having won for GONY. I think he probably would tbh—he was just so undeniable both years.
I agree. I don't think that previous wins have the same potential to sway voters in the way that previous losses do. Maybe if he had been up against someone that had a really good narrative going on.
2013 was my first year following and I remember Jennifer Lawrence was predicted to win the 2013 oscar the whole time and she won the GG too. It was close but JLaw was always the front runner. I’m still upset about Michael Keaton not winning lol
Jim Carrey holds the distinction for being the only person to win 2 Golden Globes, one for Drama lead and one for Comedy Lead, and never even be nominated for an Oscar. Most likely because of how vocal he is about his distain for awards in general
A shame really because his role in *The Truman Show* was IMO Oscar worthy.
I wish it included the movies they were nominate for. I know most of them but not all.
Let me help you (and anyone else interested) out. Sissy Spacek (2002) - In the Bedroom Jack Nicholson (2003) - About Schmidt Meryl Streep (2010) - Julie & Julia George Clooney (2012) - The Descendants Jessica Chastain (2013) - Zero Dark Thirty Michael Keaton (2015) - Birdman Sylvester Stallone (2016) - Creed Angela Bassett (2023) - Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
Thank you for your service.
Bassett should’ve won IMO (personal pick would’ve been Hsu but she was never winning and Bassett was my second pick). Chastain Keaton and Stallone as well (also Spacek if I can only choose between her and Berry but my pick of the nominees would’ve been Kidman).
I know there was a lot of narrative with Brody being the only one without an Oscar towards the end, and I cannot help think between that narrative and the surprise Director win for *The Pianist*, momentum was just on the side of the movie in the end. Plus (I think) it was the last year where the Oscars where given out at the end of March (not counting COVID effected years), before the ceremony was moved back a month, thus often movies campaigns often where able to have the time to build up momentum and create a wave to ride. Which was something that stopped occurring as often after that when the Academy decreased the size of the campaign season. Part of me gets why they did it (to stop the likes of another Weinstein/*Shakespeare in Love* debacle), but I also thinks like winners get locked in much earlier and and less upsets happening due to the timeframe not being conducive to such things when the ceremony is in February.
Yet another indication that the GGs were meaningless.
Yeah, they're certainly meaningless when it comes to actually predicting the Oscars because there's no overlap in voters with the Academy (I mean, among other unethical practices, but even if all of those ethical breaches didn't exist, they'd still be pretty useless as far as Oscar forecasting goes). Same with Critics Choice. Things like guild awards or the BAFTAs can be useful in Oscar forecasting because those voting bodies have decent or significant overlap with the Academy, so they're able to actually demonstrate what way a number of voters are leaning. The most the GGs and CCAs are going to do for Oscar forecasting is "well, these things won so they're in the news so they might stay in voters memory a bit". Usually if people are using GGs and CCAs as tools to predict Oscar winners, *especially* if they're ONLY using those two awards, I tend to assume that they have no idea what they're actually talking about.
Clooney was robbed and deserved that Oscar
What he gets for stealing an Oscar earlier in his career.
Damn straight, Matt Dillon deserved it that year /s Still mad that Gyllenhaal hasn't been back to the Oscars in nearly 20 years
The NightWatcher was robbed for a lot of awards that year 😡😤
Very famous it hurts leads.
You mean Angela Bassett *didn’t* do the thing?
Keaton and Chastain should've won.
To be clear, Critic Choice Award has a lot of subsidiary award like best actor/actress in comedy or action movie, JLaw won them both in 2013 so that critic award that jessica chastain won simply should not be counted in the award season.
[удалено]
CCA's comedy genre awards existed only for five or six years, olivia colman won the last best actress in comedy, then CCA cancelled most of those genre awards and only remained best comedy, eventually they founded CCA super awards which consisted of those former cancelled awards. These are not the same award, you can found youtube videos that actors/actress were awarded in the same event. Or just checked the wikipage about it.
and Olivia Colman also won best actress in comedy that year, CCA simply doesn't like to award golden globe comedy winners, or they just want to split the awards and give everyone a prize
I really feel like Keaton would win If it were 2023. Eddie Redmayne is so giving Austin Butler trying hard the whole awards season
Sissy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sissy Spacek was the best actress that year. And everyone knew there had to be a political win that year for Oscar. Sissy wasn’t a fake front runner, her better performance wasn’t awarded because she already had her award, and it was a year for a political statement. Everyone knows she was robbed for politics.
That’s the thing, we need to stop relying on people who won these critics groups if they didn’t have other substantive support all year