OUCH - 'Sweeney' Shut Out of the SAG Awards- Page 2

[allofmylife]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 12:20pm

It's also a quality year on all fronts. Someone always loses out in great years. Let's celebrate the fact that there's so much quality stuff to see and just enjoy Sweeney. Also, I'm sure nobody involved is crying about this. It's just the SAG awards (sorry guys, don't mean to be harsh but it's just an awards show).

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 12:43pm

Phyllis, I wasn't even touching on the "opinion" of the film Dreamgirls. We can leave that for the 3,000 other threads on the subject. That's moot, for this thread.

I was only talking about the facts:

Fact: Dreamgirls was touted as a front-runner to win Best Picture by many the media, and very early on in the year. I'm talking about the advance "buzz" and speculation (which was based on nothing but a few clips and previous Oscar pedigree). Not on people actually seeing the film.

Fact: All five movies nominated for Best Picture (Oscar) last year, and Best Director had screeners sent out to Academy members prior to balloting. Dreamgirls, a supposed front-runner for the win, did not.


Fact: The same companies are handling the Sweeney Todd movie domestically: DreamWorks and Paramount. (MB---Warner Bros. has international rights only for Sweeney. They have nothing to do with domestic marketing or distribution of the film. And I doubt they have much, if anything, to do with the "local" Oscar campaigning either.)

I just hope they fired whoever it was last year that didn't send out screeners for Dreamgirls. Otherwise, we may see an instant replay, if they haven't changed their strategy (or lack thereof).

Sweeney doesn't have the over-hyped buzz of being an Oscar front-runner months in advance like Dreamgirls did. I'm hoping that's to its advantage. And I was hoping that the PR for DreamWorks/Paramount had learned its lesson. At least that's what I was believing so far.

I also think it was physically impossible for them to get screeners out that fast to SAG members, since a final print was still being polished up. But it's been locked for a couple of weeks now... so those screeners had better be going out to all Academy voting members this week, or forget it.

The holidays are when many Oscar voters sit down on their couches (either at home or in hotel rooms) and catch up on films. It's insane the number of screeners that are being dumped into their laps this time of year. This week, and next. If the Sweeney Oscar/PR machine misses the holiday window and sends them out in January, that would be bad too... but not as bad as missing the nomination, film-watching period altogether.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 12:55pm

"How is this Broadway news?

Because we all love SWEENEY 'round here, and we want to see our baby do well, you see."

Testify, Bustopher!

[Pippin]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 1:27pm

thank you besty, as usual, you are one of the only ones on here with any sense. I can't (well, I can) believe that people here are whining about the vocal performances when they haven't even seen the actual film, so they can see how Bonham's and Depp's acting choices are dictating how they are singing.

This movie is not a live stage show, folks. once again, it's a different medium, and it takes a different approach. If you had George Hearn's marvelous baritone in this film, he would be laughed off the screen.

And as Sondheim said, this more about the acting, less about the singing. We already have umpteen recordings of Sweeney with wonderful singers, Now let's all take a deep breath, and enjoy a different take on our favorite show.

[Revolutionary]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 1:55pm

Ouch (not really). Sweeney is a good movie, but it isn't great. It wouldn't have been realistic to think that it was totally going to sweep awards season.

[Pippin]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 1:56pm

I actually think it's great, revolutionary, but I do agree with you about the awards.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 2:34pm

"I like when Foster gets surly. It's sexy. "


Well!

[Revolutionary]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 2:40pm

Sorry to be a thread pirate, but can someone clear this up for me?

Atonement screeners were sent out and Sweeney screeners were not. Is that correct?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 2:48pm

ATONEMENT screeners were sent out late (a couple of days before final ballots were due). SWEENEY did not send out screeners.
Updated On: 12/20/07 at 02:48 PM

[Revolutionary]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 2:52pm

Thanks. :)

[bk]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 2:53pm

"That's what happened to Dreamgirls last year. The major guilds didn't get DVD screeners prior to the nominating ballots. I asked around with friends who were in the guilds and not one got a Dreamgirls screener prior to nominating. And all five of the films that WERE nominated were sent to Academy members on DVD.

And it's a sad, hard fact now, that most voters will pass a film by if they can't see it first from their living room couches.

If Paramount/DreamWorks makes the same mistake this year with Sweeney, and holds out on DVD screeners to Academy members, Depp still MIGHT sneak in with a nod, but I could see it costing the movie a Best Picture nom. Very easily. And in many other categories as well.

Can't they figure it out? "

If an Academy member can't get off their complacent ass and go see a screening in a proper theater or screening room, they should be drummed out of the Academy. Screeners should be banned. There are many, many screenings every day of all sorts of films - I can't tell you the number of envelopes that come my way with invites (I'm a DGA member). SAG did have a Sweeney screening last Saturday in LA at the DGA Theater, and it was packed. But, the bottom line is really who gives a crap about SAG awards? They're meaningless, although, for me, not quite as meaningless as the Golden Globes, where they really DID nominate Sweeney without having seen it. THAT august organization is made up of press people - and their award nominations are frequently based on how accessible the studio has made the actors, how much money is spent, etc. It's all bogus and silly. In the end, the Oscars, love them or hate them, are the only awards that carry any cache at the box-office, which is, after all, all this has become about. Didn't start out that way, but that's sure what it's devolved to, with studios spending millions of dollars every year to inundate Academy members with screeners, scripts, CDs, gift packages - shameful and shameless and I shall now be done with my mini-rant.

[jackie]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 3:00pm

Supposedly Tim Burton's behind the decision to withhold the screeners -- he wants people to see the movie in theatres.
And to be fair - Dreamgirls got 3 SAG noms without screeners last year. It also scored more mentions with critics groups, top tens, AFI, Globe nods, etc. than Sweeney has at this point. And this was AFTER people had seen it, so not just the result of the hype.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 3:08pm

How exactly has this been a "quality year?"

I CANNOT see SWEENEY not getting a Best Picture nod, just for the risk factor alone (a slasher movie musical.) Almost all of the highly touted "Oscar-bait" movies this year bit the dust. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and AMERICAN GANGSTER didn't do nearly as well as expected--they may get acting and/or directing nods, but neither are inspiring enough for Oscar (and they aren't much less violent than SWEENEY.) Don't throw THE DEPARTED at me--it was around for much longer, made a lot more money, and had time to make an impression on the culture. ATONEMENT and CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR will fill some of the other slots, but JUNO is way too "indie" (and I don't think it'll generate as much interest as the publicity for it makes out) and everything else I can think of would be laughable. (LIONS FOR LAMBS? Please.)

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 3:10pm

Well, not necessarily *after*...

Having been a voter on these kinds of awards, I can tell you that you'd be surprised what people will check off on a nomination ballot based on buzz alone, without having actually seen the film...

If I'm remembering correctly, DREAMGIRLS didn't send out screeners but they did a lot of other screenings and private invitation events to members of SAG and other guilds. Those things really do affect how people vote.

Last year, studios behind LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and THE DEPARTED sent screeners to the entire voting body of SAG! That's a huge expense but it sure paid off for them...

I'm not sure if Tim Burton is the reason for the screeners being withheld. If there is some concious decision to not issue them, I bet it has to do with a fear of piracy before the release of the movie (given Depp's popularity).

EDIT

Roquat - you are somehow equating *quality* with accesibility. There have been plenty of great films this year, and while box office does play a part in many an Oscar win for Best Picture - sometimes smaller films do win.

At this point, I'd say NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is the surest nominee and probable winner for Best Picture because the people who love the film REALLY love it.

I think we've kind of moved past the "too violent for Oscar" thing. I agree about SWEENEY TODD not being a probable Oscar nominee for Best Picture, but I don't think that has to do with the blood.

Updated On: 12/20/07 at 03:10 PM

[roquat]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 3:24pm

Smaller films do indeed win, but only after they get tremendous pushes from their publicity departments and from critics (LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE). NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN peaked weeks ago--barring several nominations and a re-release, it's effectively over. I can't believe it has enough numerical support to make it to Best Picture. There are still an awful lot of older Academy members for whom "quality" and wide-release popularity are the same thing--sure, they sometimes fall for smaller movies, but they have to be led to them.

[jackie]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 3:29pm

Again, to be fair -- Dreamgirls was nominated by almost every guild in January (most crucially the PGA and DGA) and won 3 Golden Globes -- well after the time that the initial "buzz" had died down. A lot of groups had huge affection for that film, including the Academy. In fact, there's a strong chance that Dreamgirls will have more noms than Hairspray and Sweeney combined.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 3:42pm

Well, they may not have a choice this year, because there may not be a big budget Hollywood success with enough critical support to win the Oscar for best picture or even make a nomination!

None of the supposed frontrunners:

INTO THE WILD
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
JUNO
ATONEMENT
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY

are going to qualify as wide release popular hits. (NO COUNTRY is at least a film that people can't seem to stop talking about...)

SWEENEY TOOD actually could. SWEENEY's success as an awards magnet has always been dependent on its box office. If it really takes off financially and is a reasonable success with critics (which I think it will be) it *could* sneak in there.

It could work in SWEENEY's favor, that unlike DREAMGIRLS the movie doesn't appear to have peaked opening day.




Updated On: 12/20/07 at 03:42 PM

[roquat]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 3:55pm

You didn't mention GREAT DEBATERS, which is getting so-so reviews as a standard "inspirational" picture elevated by its performers. INTO THE WILD got VERY divided press, and many people hated it (its box office hasn't been inspiring either), plus a backlash is developing against Sean Penn as an example of Hollywood self-righteousness (I don't share this view, but it's there.) JUNO and DIVING BELL are so "indie" they will need substantial critical and grass-roots support to make it into Best Picture territory at all, let alone edging out SWEENEY (they're more likely to score for acting/writing nominations.)

As for NO COUNTRY, the Coen brothers have been out to lunch both aesthetically and financially for so long I just don't know if this is the movie that'll rescue them. Yes, I know Hollywood loves a comeback...

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 3:59pm

"If I'm remembering correctly, DREAMGIRLS didn't send out screeners but they did a lot of other screenings and private invitation events to members of SAG and other guilds."

Absolutely right, MB. I've never seen so many invitations to screenings for a movie before! The guilds and especially the Academy members were both inundated.

And I'm sure whoever was behind this was sharing bk's sentiments of "get your ass to a theatre and see it!"

But the reality is they're just not doing it that much anymore. Neither is the general public, for that matter.

I remember asking several voters after the nominations came out last year, "what happened to Dreamgirls?" All but one said they hadn't seen it yet. They all saw it by the time of the final balloting, but not for the nominations. Two were out of town on projects during the nomination window, so they wouldn't have had a chance to see it any other way besides a screener.

And we're only talking about a few votes here, if it's a "grey area" film. It can either push a film into, or out of, the top five.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 4:06pm

There is no buzz on THE GREAT DEBATORS - its not going to suddenly come out of nowhere to be a Best Picture nominee. As Best12 alludes to, it takes a while for voters to get around to seeing all these films. DREAMGIRLS probably got as much early guild support as it did, largely based on "Oscar Buzz" without a lot of people having even seen the movie at all!

The real lesson is, that more and more often, the strategy of opening a film in the last month of the year doesn't work in terms garnering Oscar support.

In this era of DVDS, its the films like THE DEPARTED that opened earlier in the year, that people remember liking, and that most people have had a chance to see (in the theatre or at home) and digest that seem to be making a good showing at the Oscars.

The big lump of December releases is too messy to sort out and decipher, now especially that the Oscars are a month early.

[GladysBumps]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 4:51pm

May I offer as a long time member of SAG, this is one of the bull**** awards of all time. It's a complete crap shoot who gets on the nominating committee and very often it includes a lot of very green members who just got in the union via wavers for extra work, and have never walked into an acting class in their lives. They get mailed DVDs and are invited to screenings, but very often don't find the time to watch or attend. So it's a complete popularity contest. Believe me, most of us actual actor members just shudder when we see who's been left off the list every year. Fageddaboudit. Not to be taken seriously.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 5:02pm

How could they shut out ENCHANTED and WAITRESS for best actress and WAITRESS for best ensemble?

[GladysBumps]

Posted: 12/20/07 at 6:57pm

Shut out because not enough of them got extra work on either production. Get it?