I guess, but Hurt has constsitently overshadowed Harris in the precursors.

That said, AMPAS does love them some Ed Harris.

I think they'll probably just go with a second CRASH guy. But my Frank Langella dream.....

I'm not sure why I just called Bob Hoskins a long shot. He's right in there, jockeying with the HOV guys and the Crash guys.

OK, all of this Giamatti bandwagon jumping just got dealt a hit. Let me tell you why this is Clooney's year at the Oscars.

Clooney's like the captain of the football team.

Voters know he had a great film that he directed.

Voters know that he isn't going to win for the film or as the director.

Voters know they have another option to give him a well earned Oscar for his great year in the industry.

Clooney has become and actor, writer, director, and producer of note.

This is how AMPAS stacks up:

1,298 Actors
465 Producers
433 Executives
403 Writers
416 Sound
365 Public relations
366 Art directors
372 Directors
366 Members-at-large
307 Shorts
241 Music composers, lyricists
239 Visual effects
222 Film editors
182 Cinematographers
128 Documentarians

Can anybody honestly say anybody else in this category has near that much on their side? What do Paul Giamatti or Matt Dillion have going for their case? It's Clooney's award, folks!

Why not give Clooney the Screenplay award?

Why not give Clooney the Director award?

Because he has competition.

You are essentially saying Best Supporting Actor will be awarded with politics in mind. I agree. I just think that opens up a big hole for Giamatti.

Giamatti is only owed a nomination. That's why he's been given the accolades, to make sure he gets last year made up to him. He wasn't going to win anything last year, so they just want to make up the nom snub.

Clooney, on the other hand, had a way better year. He's not going to get director and Haggis will have the screenplay he didn't get last year made up to him. The Best Supporting actor for Clooney ties it all up in a neat package.

I'm not saying your post is without logic.

I see them as pretty even at this point.

It will clearly come down to either one, I just think Giamatti has more momentum for a win here.

If Clooney loses Screenplay to Crash that will be pretty tragic.

Comeon, guys and gals, who whoever was betting on Giamatti for whatever reason, tell me what you are thinking. (or what were you smoking. ) What on Earth makes anybody think he'll get anything more than a makeup nominations. I saw Giamatti listed by most of you, and I hope it wasn't because of Oscarwatch, who really disappoint me with their lack of direction in their picks. It's like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off who don't really grasp how things work. (King Kong??? They certainly tried to push that for best picture there...)

Anyway, this is about supporting actor. Why on Earth would anybody pick Giamatti? That just baffles me.

First off, I don't think anyone here predicts a category because one other source has.

It will definitely come down to Giamatti v Clooney, unless some other actor gains serious buzz in the last stretch, which would be hard without any other previous wins or such in critics/globe awards.

I think Maverikks makes very valid points.
The fact is, though, that Giamatti was snubbed twice and while it was evident he was never the Oscar front-runner to win the Actor award, both were pretty bad and memorable snubs.

Funny though, I don't think either Giamatti or Clooney were among the 5 best supporting actors this year

If Clooney wins, it will mean he will lose out Director and Screenplay.
If Giamatti wins, it will be to make-up for the snubs and I think a Supporting win in place for two big Actor nom snubs seems to equal out (at least to me ).

Either way, the winner is going to be a result of make-up politics and neither being even close to deserving it, I don't really care anymore.

I guess I'd prefer Clooney to win much more because he has had an amazing year and while he should truly be awarded for his work behind the camera last year, if he can get anything, it will be a plus.

Just because Clooney finally won an award doesn't mean that a win for Giamatti is completely out of the question. The SAG will tell us all we need to know, and right now I'd give both of them a 50/50 shot at ultimately winning the Oscar. Many voters will see them as both being "due" to win an award, Clooney for his work in the present year and Giamatti for his snubbed work in the prior two years. Who knows which one the majority of voters will go with, and heck the SAG/Academy may go for neither! Last year the Critic's Choice Awards picked Haden-Church and the Globes went for Clive Owen, neither of whom went on to win the SAG or the Oscar. It's much more doubtful this year but I wouldn't really be surprised if it happens.

If GNGL loses screenplay, Clooney will win Best Sup. Actor. He won't walk away with two awards, though.

If Giamatti loses this time, the next time he is nominated he will automatically be a massive frontrunner.

I never said Giamatti is out of the question, but he doesn't have much of a chance. Clooney is rubbing elbows with people that Paul Giamatti isn't. He's made many powerful and influential friends in many circles. Much more than Paul Giamatti. Clooney is also a leading man star actor where Giamatti is basically a character actor who will never be a star anywhere close to the level of George Clooney.

These voters aren't dummies. They know very well that Good Night, and Good Luck isn't going to win anything, and it's getting shut out a lot, if you've noticed. They have their good pal, George Clooney, who's a best director nominee, best picture nominee, and best screenplay nominee, but those categories are all clearly not places that Good Night , and Good Luck is a frontrunner to win in. Even David Strathairn is behind others. His Best Supporting Actor spot is the perfect place to thank him, and all Giamatti needs is a nomination for the academy to be square. He's never been owed a win.

Clooney was incredibly important to this year. He produced more than just Syriana and Good Night, and Good Luck. Here's his list of 2005 credits:

As and Actor

* Syriana
* Good Night, and Good Luck.

As a Director

* Good Night, and Good Luck.

As a Writer

* Good Night, and Good Luck.

As a Producer

* Rumor Has It... (2005) (executive producer)
* Syriana (2005) (executive producer)
* The Big Empty (2005) (executive producer)
* The Jacket (2005) (producer)

Just to be fair, here's Giamatti:

As an Actor

Robots (voice)
Cinderella Man

Now I ask you, I ask you all, in a town such as Hollywood, known for their favoritisms and politics, who do you really think they would reward more of the two?

George Clooney, who saved this years Oscars from being a total wreck by contributing heavily to two films that both got Oscar attention in various categories, or Paul Giamatti, who didn't even really do incredible work or anything, just standard and reliable? We have to also remember, that Clooney's Oscar nominated performance in Syriana was only one of two good supporting turns for Clooney this year, as he also was good in Good Night, and Good Luck.

Let's not kid ourselves that Clooney wouldn't get more invitations to parties than anybody else on the list of supporting actors, and as I explained with the number in the Academy, Clooney covers himself well with many groups.

1,298 Actors
465 Producers
433 Executives
403 Writers
416 Sound
365 Public relations
366 Art directors
372 Directors
366 Members-at-large
307 Shorts
241 Music composers, lyricists
239 Visual effects
222 Film editors
182 Cinematographers
128 Documentarians

That's 5803 members. How many do you really believe Paul Giamatti can get compared to what George Clooney could get, and you can tell that Clooney wants this by his reactions at both of the ceremonies. (critics and Golden Globes)

I just have never seen this race any other way than a George Clooney lovefest. He's got everything working in his favor for the victory.

Paul Giamatti joined the Academy last year so that's one vote for him! WOOOOOOO!

Clooney produced The Big Empty and The Jacket? That together with Rumor Has It should have him BANNED frlm this year's Oscars!

lol.

Actually, I think they could also give it to Clooney as sort of validating his career of acting up to today. Sort of like saying, here you go, now show us what else you can do. Of course, the strongest reason would still be his consolation for Good Night.

Actually, those two movies would more realistically fall under the "average" category, not the horrible category, but the point was, he's obviously has power in Hollywood that Giamatti does. A LOT more. He's got connections in a lot more sects of AMPAS than anybody in that category. Remember what those kind of connections did for Clint Eastwood.

Have YOU seen those two movies? Because I have...

I've seen Rumor Has It and it was my biggest disappointment of the year, but not because it was horrible, just because it was very mediocre. I don't hear the consensus bashing either film, which tells me it's not hated but not cared for one way or the other. Forgetable. Disappointing, but not awful.

I have seen all three and Rumor Has It was the best of them, hehehe. He's just lucky that:

1) No one knows he produced them

2) No one saw them

3) No one knows they exist

Are you trying to tell me that AMPAS has no idea that George Clooney is a producer of note now? We know it, but they don't?

LOL

The Oscars aren't all about cronyism, otherwise Amy Adams & Michelle Williams would not be frontrunners in Supporting Actress. What bigwigs are they rubbing elbows with? I'm sure it plays a factor but not to the extent that it has a major effect on the awards.



I don't see how being a leading man is helpful, this is a supporting category after all.



I don't disagree with this logic (except for the part about Giamatti being square with a nom), but we cannot tell what is going through the Academy's head. I can see the majority giving it to Clooney because of his year, and I can see them giving it to Giamatti because of the two snubs in a row. I wouldn't be surprised either way.



If Oscars were decided by what the actor did in the past year then Catherine Keener would be the frontrunner for Supporting Actress, yet she might not even make the final five. Clooney had an amazing year, we all know that. Giamatti had a strong turn in a movie that is going to be passed over in every other category, but his work in 2003 & 2004 is very well-respected and most importantly, was overlooked by the Academy. Clooney on the other hand, starred in Ocean's Twelve (panned sequel) and Intolerable Cruelty (panned romcom) in the same time frame.



Again, I feel the need to mention Keener.



I don't see how who gets into the most parties is relevant. Does this mean we should expect Paris Hilton to show up on the Supporting Actress list for her turn in House of Wax?



I have no idea! I don't know any Academy members, I don't know if they have posters of George Clooney all over their walls or if they set DVDs of his movies on fire in their spare time. I do agree that, based on media perception alone, he's certainly more "in" with the Hollywood crowd than Giamatti is, but this isn't a popularity contest. If it were, half the actors likely to be nominated wouldn't even be considered.

They know he is a producer, but think of who the members of the AMPAS are? Mostly actors. Do you think that just because they are actors their knowledge of who does what is much bigger than ours? NOPE. They know he is a producer, they don't know what movies he produced (well, maybe Rumor Has It, but not others). Ask some random actors, the members of the AMPAS, who produced The Big Empty and they won't even know the name of the movie (well, most of them).

Clooney really didn't have anything to do with those movies. I think Section 8, his production company with Soderbergh, produced them, so he gets an obligatory credit. "Executive Producer" tends to fall in that category, especially when we're talking about a big star.

It's not unlike finding Demi Moore's name in the list of Austin Powers' credits.

It's the way it works, and if it wasn't, Shirley McLaine wouldn't have been sitting at the Globes last night, Amy Adams would have. All of these organizations reward their friends and legends, and have since their inception.

And it definitely DOES play a big factor. Who would you vote for, your friend that actually deserved the award more anyway, plus contributed all over the map, or the quiet guy who doesn't get around making friends nearly as much. The academy will feel the same way. That's their MO.



It's all about image, something Hollywood is obsessed with.



They are taking care of his snub by giving him the nomination. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they owe him anything for American Splendor, but they definitely do for Sideways, so nobody is going to complain about letting him slide with a performance that was merely serviceable for the role, nothing special. All they really owe him is a nomination, as he was never snubbed of a victory. They don't have to give him an Oscar to make up for an eventual loss that he would have gotten anyway, just the nom.



Well, Keener stands a chance of getting bumped for political reasons, and it's not like she's George Clooney or anything. She's not been singled out for her performances like others have been by everyone who's seen their film. The word I get is that she doesn't stand out, and having already seen 40 year old Virgin and The Interpreter, I concur with that. She's not in the same league as Clooney is.

And we aren't talking about critics. They have nothing to do with being an academy member. Lots of great actors have had some critically panned films, but that didn't matter to AMPAS when it came time to reward them when they did good work.



Sure thing, as long as you don't mind me mentioning how she doesn't compare to George Clooney's status in any way, shape, or form.



Are you just trying to argue, or do you really think there are valid comparisons between George Clooney and Paris Hilton, or that Syriana and Goodnight and Good Luck are comparable in any way to House of Wax. I'm scratching my head over that comment.

It really does matter WHO they party with, not how many parties they go to. I'm sure you've heard the term "It's who you know that counts". This applies to AMPAS quite a bit.



Arghhh! It's totally a popularity contest. Ask Martin Scorcese.

When the popularity matches the quality, which it does in Clooney's case, you can bet it'll get noticed.

But you do think Amy Adams will be at the Oscars over Shirley MacLaine, right? and what about Diane Keaton? If it were such a big factor wouldn't all her friends be voting her into the Supporting category instead of the more indie, younger, inexperienced (compared to Keaton or MacLaine) actresses who are the frontrunners?



I'm not saying they do owe him anything, I just think it wouldn't be surprising if a lot of the Academy members do take the snub(s) into consideration when voting, perhaps leading them to vote for Giamatti over another candidate.



I agree that she hasn't really stood out in her supporting roles as much as the critics and etc. are saying, but considering the inclusion of Rumor Has It & The Jacket in Clooney's resume, I was thinking of quantity over quality. Plus her work, while I didn't find it all that remarkable, was solid in each film and lots of people were impressed with her. I think she's had the most successful year of all the (likely) Supporting Actresses nominees, which is the only way in which I would compare her to Clooney.



Sarcasm



Of course, but that doesn't mean the biggest partier automatically is awarded because everyone knows him/her. I agree that most things you mentioned do play factors but unless I'm misunderstanding it seems like you're giving them far too much credit.



I knew I should have plugged an adverb in there, I mean it's not entirely a popularity contest, quality is taken into consideration and I think more so than popularity.

Diane Keaton wasn't in a universally well received film, nor was her performance praised and praised by everyone, and I say that as somebody who would love to see her recognized and absolutely LOVED The Family Stone. This is the difference that you aren't connecting to Clooney, for some reason. I actually have Shirley getting a nomination this year for the very reasons that I mentioned, with Bello or Keener snubbed in favor of her. Snubs are gonna happen somewhere.



They definitely will take the snubs into consideration while voting, which is why they'll vote for Clooney for Best Supporting actor. They'll be well aware that they keep snubbing him left and right for best director, picture, and screenplay, and they'll reward him where they can, and they can for Best Supporting Actor because he's a valid choice that nobody would argue.

The Oscars have too many "non stars" that that are in position to win this year. They NEED stars. George Clooney and Reese Witherspoon make for much better press for a telecast that has rating concerns every year.



Well, Rumor Has It and The Jacket weren't included as a plea for quality, they were included to demonstrate exactly where Clooney's status in the producer world has risen to, as he's now involved in getting many films with a budget into wide release. That's besides directing and acting, where he performed at top level in two acclaimed films this year.

I think Keener has had the busiest year of the supporting actresses, but she's basically playing parts that Rene Russo could have played in her sleep. This is why I don't see her as much of a threat. Clooney doesn't qualify as somebody sleepwalking through his performances, and the work he did in 2005. Keener was more in league with Jennifer Aniston. This is why I don't really think she's a good comparison.



I think there is no understating it when it comes to the politics that get played in these awards. It certainly helps that Clooney did great work, and I think it's safe to say that he has the advantage over Giamatti's performance in Cinderella Man with the performances alone. It's pretty much agreed upon that Giamatti's turn in CM wasn't anything special. If he was raved about, a Giamatti win would carry some weight, but he did a serviceable job which was enough to ensure that the politics would get him his makeup nomination for the one he deserved last year.



Well, of course it is. If Clooney had sucked, he wouldn't even be a consideration, but all he needed to do was deliver the goods, which he did, and the rest takes care of itself.