Not necessarily a "duh." Quite true that it's Hollywood actors' awards, but that doesn't necessarily involve pushing a political or cultural "agenda," which I think is what honeychile was suggesting may be the case with these particular nominations.

Good acting is good acting, regardless of whether it's in a movie with a message that Hollywood "approves of" or not. But then, I don't remember Jin Caviezel getting a SAG nomination.

I stand by my original assessment of "duh."

Hollywood has always been left leaning. It's as silly and obvious to say they have an agenda as saying Republicans have an agenda.

Passion of the Christ was a really bad movie. A really popular movie, but a bad one (sorry Mel Gibson).

I don't know that I'd agree. But then again, what do I know? I thought Forrest Gump was a really bad movie.

The point is, Jim Caviezel could have given the best acting performance since Olivier and he still wouldn't have gotten a nomination because that would have suggested that Hollywood approved of the movie.

Then this Democrat, who perhaps misunderstood your original "duh," can now concur with your "duh."

Owner Of The Utah Jazz who owns a Chain of Movie Theaters took the movies off because it was Of Gay Cowboys.

Hell in that part of The "US" what do You do? So You do sheep, I know that Was Baad!:)