January 27, 2010

The Scenario Series continues on with the Supporting categories, along with Podcast #10 and the Davis Awards on the Main Page of The Awards Circuit!

Yes, the Main Page of The Awards Circuit has 3 top notch things for you to take a glance at today. We start off with the third installment of our annual Scenario Series, this one tackling what could happen with Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Check it out here and let us know what you think!
There's also the long awaited Podcast #10 for everyone to listen to. It's on the Sundance Film Festival and can be heard here, so be sure to tune in and comment.
Finally, we have the winners of the annual Davis Awards. The honorees from our fearless editor can be found here, so take a look and let us know how you like this year's edition.
Last, but not least, keep voting in the Awards Circuit Community Awards, as voting is coming down to the wire. Go here to vote and get your votes in!
-Thoughts on the next Scenario article, Podcast, Davis Awards, and what will happen with ACCA?


  1. Clayton: A Serious Man didn't make your top 20, but Humpday did? Desthpicable! (that's right, I went Daffy Duck on your ass)

    At least you gave a nom to Michael Stuhlbarg.

  2. Interesting route to take, though I'm a Daffy fan, so I like it.

    That being said, I have Humpday far higher on my Best of 2009 list than A Serious Man as well, so Clayton's not alone (if you want specifics, Humpday is my #29 of the year, and A Serious Man is my #80 of the year, out of 150).

  3. I have a big problem with these "scenarios" mainly because they aren't realistic at all and I feel a scenario should be moderately realistic. It spans all the predictions but I'll focus solely on the latest batch. My biggest problems are with #8 and #9 for supporting actor and 6-8 for supporting actress. If A Serious Man is a "serious contender" then one of the two would be a surprise and show us something. Its the same for all the female performances too. If they love Precious or Nine, two nominations would be a surprise, or in this case an actual scenario, but placing the 3rd is just insane and would never happen. Three supporting nominations would only happen if a film had always been a serious contender. It would never happen to a film on the outside of the inner circle. To sum all this up, for next year please keep the scenarios plausible and not absurd.

  4. That's a perfectly valid opinion, but everyone's style is different. I can only speak for myself, but that's the style I've used for a number of years with my scenarios articles, so it's a method that's worked well, so I'm in no hurry to abandon it. There's a level of absurdity to any attempt to delve into what might happen with a voting body, so to say that anything isn't plausible is to sort of sell short the notion that things aren't set in stone, which they're not. You're not the first person to not be thrilled with having somewhat silly predictions included in the article, but I've had far more people write me to say they enjoyed it and like a little irreverence, so it's a formula that seems to work. In the end, I'm just happy people read what we write. I do appreciate the feedback, though.

  5. Dont get me wrong, I do enjoy them and appreciate all the work and effort put into them. I just remember last years were a little more fun because they were more plausible. It either that or this year is just so boring when it comes to who will be nominated

  6. It's likely a little of column A and a little of column B...