forbes.com
2025 Oscars: Emilia Pérez Leads, Notable Snubs and Surprises
The 2025 Oscar nominations, announced Thursday, saw Emilia Pérez dominate with 13 nods, while notable snubs included Selena Gomez and several high-profile actors; surprise inclusions were Nickel Boys and I'm Still Here for Best Picture, and Sebastian Stan for Best Actor.
- What are the potential long-term implications of the 2025 Oscar nominations on the film industry and future awards recognition?
- The 2025 Oscars highlight the evolving dynamics of awards recognition. The inclusion of films like Nickel Boys and I'm Still Here reflects a shift in voter preferences or a broader recognition of diverse cinematic voices. Future awards seasons will reveal if this trend continues.
- How did the nominations from other awards ceremonies, such as the Golden Globes and SAG Awards, influence the Oscar nominations?
- Several films and actors with significant awards season momentum, such as Nickel Boys and I'm Still Here, secured Oscar nominations, showcasing the awards' cumulative effect. Conversely, high-profile contenders like A Real Pain and Daniel Craig (Queer) were surprisingly omitted.
- What were the most significant surprises and snubs in the 2025 Oscar nominations, and what do they indicate about current trends in film recognition?
- The 2025 Oscar nominations saw Emilia Pérez lead with 13 nominations, while notable snubs included Selena Gomez and several high-profile actors. Surprise nominations included Nickel Boys and I'm Still Here for Best Picture, and Sebastian Stan for Best Actor.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately highlight "big surprises and snubs." This framing emphasizes the unexpected and negative aspects of the nominations, setting a tone that prioritizes controversy over a balanced overview of the nominees. The article consistently uses this framing, further reinforcing a narrative focused on upsets and exclusions rather than comprehensive coverage of the nominations.
Language Bias
The article uses charged language such as "snubs," "missed out," and "upset." These terms carry negative connotations and could influence the reader's perception of the nominees who weren't selected. More neutral language like "not nominated" or "not included" would avoid imposing subjective judgment.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on surprises and snubs, potentially omitting analysis of films and performances that received nominations without generating significant buzz. For example, while several films are mentioned as expected nominees, there's little discussion of their merits or why they were considered strong contenders beyond general awards season success. The omission of detailed discussion on these films might create an unbalanced perspective, favoring the narrative of upsets and unexpected exclusions.
False Dichotomy
The article repeatedly frames nominations in a binary "surprise/snub" dichotomy. While acknowledging some expected nominees, it heavily emphasizes unexpected wins and losses, potentially neglecting the nuances and complexities of the judging process. This simplification could misrepresent the actual diversity of opinion and voting patterns within the Academy.
Gender Bias
While the article mentions both male and female nominees and winners, there's no overt gender bias in the language or selection of details. However, it would be beneficial to analyze whether the article focuses on different aspects of male vs female nominees. For example, are personal details or physical descriptions disproportionately emphasized for female nominees compared to male nominees? A deeper examination could reveal implicit biases.