Full list of nominees here: http://www.saturnawards.org/ "Into Darkness" is nominated for Best Science Fiction Film, Abrams for Best Director, Cumberbatch for Best Supporting Actor. Technical category nominations are for Costume Design and Special/Visual Effects. Personally, I think STID has *no* chance at winning Best Sci-Fi Film. That will most likely go to "Gravity", though "Hunger Games: Catching Fire" is a possibility. I do think that Cumberbatch has a decent shot at the Supporting Actor trophy. Comments?
If Gravity doesn't sweep the Best SF Film, Best Director, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor categories it will have been robbed; it's just straight up in a different league from its competition. Cumberbatch could have challenged for Best Supporting Actor, he has the ability and the presence, but I think his turn as Khan involved too much scenery-chewing for it to be a serious possibility.
I agree, with the possible exception of Best Supporting Actor. Kingsley was good in IM3, I thought, but it's been almost a year since I've seen that film (and I only saw it once), so I don't have as clear a memory of his performance as Clooney's, but I remember laughing my ass off. Clooney's was excellent, though. To be honest, I'm surprised that Clooney is counted as a supporting actor. That doesn't seem fair to roles that are really only more supporting, such as Kingsley's.
Considering that Gravity isn't truly 'original' itself (it's a new version of two movies dealing with failed space missions) and that it already has won Oscars in a few categories, letting Star Trek Into Darkness be nominated for Saturn Awards isn't a crime against cinema or science fiction. Don't you think that it's time to give up this childish hatred of the Abramsverse?
It's not clear who's being addressed here (was your post even pertinent to anything in this thread?) but don't do that. Just... don't.
Shaka Zulu [When the Walls Fell ]: Just aside from the piece of gratuitous aggressiveness already noted above, you seem to routinely come onto threads loudly "refuting" things nobody has said, just like that there. Maybe if you feel someone is trying to imply something with a remark, you could try asking them what they mean first? Just for a bit of variety?
If originality is the name of the game, what the heck does Star Trek Into Darkness have going for it? If it's not being a complete rehash of the last film, it's directly lifting material word for word from previous Star Trek works. I think Gravity has the upper hand against Star Trek Into Darkness when it comes to originality.
The 40th Saturn Awards, honoring the best in science fiction, fantasy and horror film and television in 2013, will be held June 2014 in Burbank, California.
As I said, Gravity has pretty much won its awards; I personally don't think that the academy behind the Saturns is going to give it more awards after Oscar rewarded it, but give it to something else just as prominent. That STID isn't as prominent as you'd like doesn't mean that the movie's not so for others.
Presumably the people running the Saturns will reward what they think the best movie is in each category. I very much doubt they're weighing their moral duties to other "prominent films" in the wake of the Oscars.
Giving awards to a film simply because the "other" film won awards from different organizations is not a credible way of recognizing good work. It'd be like if the Academy Awards decided not to give the Best Song to "Let It Go" because song itself had won almost every other major award up to that point. That song didn't win because it won the other awards, it won because it deserved to win. What is it about Star Trek Into Darkness that makes it a more deserving film to win the Saturn awards over Gravity outside of the latter winning many awards already?
STID addressed a ton of recent concerns terrorism, revenge and blowback (in a blockbuster movie, no less!) and did it well enough to earn critical praise and a substantial amount of box office profits worldwide. I (and everybody else that's not a Trekfan trapped in Trekfan dogma about Gene Roddenberry's 'vision' of what Star Trek's supposed to be) would think that it has enough merit to win awards for script, direction, cinematography, and acting as much as the supposedly original Gravity merits them.
You're doing it again. The trouble is that it's not really just about what you think, nor about how shrill and needlessly defensive you are about what other people think. What award shows are weighing have nothing to do with how many "topicality" boxes you can tick off in STiD's script, nor with your private uni-directional feud with imaginary hordes of evil persecuting Trekfans. Their business is assessing the actual quality of the movies involved, period. The fact of the matter is that Gravity won almost universal critical acclaim and did better box than STiD -- and excelled most other films among its fellow nominees in these regards as well -- for very good reasons. Its odds in award shows are better for the same reasons. I for one am not saying this just to slam Abrams: if Gravity were competing against a movie of the quality of The Wrath of Khan I would still like its chances better. (As things are, I also like its chances better than several other films in the categories it's nominated in that I also quite like, such as Pacific Rim and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.) It's just a really really good movie, it costs me nothing to recognize that.
Um … have you actually seen Countdown, Marooned, and Gravity? I mean, yes, they all have ``space disaster'' plot points, but any standard by which Gravity is unoriginal because of that makes every Star Trek movie ever just a new version of the Flash Gordon serials. Possibly just a new version of some Georges Melies pictures.