This is the first awards season in years where three horror films are moving through the race with credible routes to major nominations. What makes the year interesting is not that they form a wave, but that each title reaches the Academy through a different door. Sinners plays cleanly across branches, with a strong path to Best Picture. Weapons had a very buzzy screenplay even before shooting, and earns attention through its construction and the way it plays with tension. Frankenstein has become a favourite of the craft fields while building enough respect to reach the major categories too. Taken together, they give the Academy the opportunity to show the range of ways horror is excelling in 2026 – although of course the Academy has disappointed us before. As things stand we’re guessing around six nominations apiece for Sinners and Frankenstein, and maybe one for Weapons (thank you, Amy Madigan), but of course anything can happen. As for the coveted Best Film and Best Director awards, it’s Sinners that has the best shot. But it’s a long road to March 15… or even to January 22, when the nominations are announced.
Here are our views on the nominations chances for those three horror films…
SINNERS: the knockout auteur contender
Ryan Coogler’s film stands as the most stable awards player among the three. It has emotional weight, technical polish and box-office force, which gives it reach with voters who do not normally gravitate toward horror. Nothing about its profile feels fringe. It moves with the confidence of a studio-backed awards film that just so happens to have a bunch of vampires in its second half (sorry, spoilers).
Best Picture: A near lock, with strong commercial and critical footing.
Best Director: Coogler remains a strong shot. His control of scale and atmosphere fits what the branch likes.
Acting: Michael B. Jordan is a strong shot for Lead Actor. Wunmi Mosaku stays on the board for Supporting Actress, although she needs critics’ support to break through.
Screenplay and craft: Original Screenplay is a strong lane. Expect the film to appear across craft ballots, especially Cinematography, Makeup, Sound, Score and the new Casting category.
WEAPONS: the playful, tension-filled screenplay contender
Zach Cregger’s film is unlikely to behave like a broad-audience awards contender, but it has qualities that matter to specific branches. Its rhythm, structure and atmosphere pull attention toward Editing, Sound and Writing, and those areas can bring a film into the wider conversation if they stay prominent in guild voting.
Best Picture: A credible bubble contender that depends on critics’ lists and guild momentum.
Acting: Amy Madigan is a strong shot for Supporting Actress. Her work is the big talking point of the film and remains its clearest route into the acting categories.
Screenplay and craft: Original Screenplay is one of its best chances. Editing remains a standout. Sound and Casting stay in play, depending on how perceptive the branches are to the film’s shifts in tone.
FRANKENSTEIN: the craft-first prestige contender
Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein has all the hallmarks of a strong craft presence: detailed production design, heavy practical makeup, sharply defined lighting and a unified period aesthetic. Recent trade coverage suggests the film is no longer only a technical player. It is now being spoken about as a potential Best Picture and Best Director nominee too.
Best Picture: A strong shot. Current press buzz predicts it will be among the nominees.
Best Director: Del Toro is a strong shot as well. The branch has long respected his precision and worldbuilding.
Acting: Jacob Elordi remains firmly in the mix for Supporting Actor.
Craft: Production Design, Costume Design and Makeup are near locks. Cinematography is climbing toward that level after recent trade attention. Score and Visual Effects remain strong possibilities too.
Nomination Odds Table
Key
🔥 Lock / Near-Lock | ✅ Strong shot | 🟡 In the mix | 🧊 Long shot | ⛔ Unlikely
| Category | SINNERS | WEAPONS | FRANKENSTEIN |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best Picture | 🔥 Near-Lock. Broad appeal and strong critical-commercial footing. | 🟡 In the mix. Needs critics and guild support. | ✅ Strong shot. Variety places it in predicted nominees. |
| Best Director | ✅ Strong shot. Coogler is widely respected; the film shows strong authorship and control. | 🧊 Long shot. Unlikely for a young director working solely in the genre space. | ✅ Strong shot. Del Toro is much loved. |
| Lead Actor | ✅ Strong shot. Michael B. Jordan anchors the film. | ⛔ Unlikely. No clear contender. | ⛔ Unlikely. No strong campaign. |
| Lead Actress | ⛔ Unlikely. No clear contender – Hailee Steinfeld feels more like Supporting. | ⛔ Unlikely. No strong campaign for Julia Garner. | ⛔ Unlikely. No clear contender – Mia Goth feels more like Supporting. |
| Supporting Actor | 🧊 Long shot. In a just world Miles Caton would have a better chance; as a new actor in a breakout role in a tough field it’ll be hard. | ⛔ Unlikely. Ensemble not positioned here. | 🟡 In the mix. Jacob Elordi has steady momentum. |
| Supporting Actress | 🧊 Long shot. Wunmi Mosaku admired but needs a lift from the critics. | ✅ Strong shot. Amy Madigan is the film’s standout. | ⛔ Unlikely. No strong campaign for Mia Goth. |
| Original Screenplay | ✅ Strong shot. Coherent and muscular script, with well-worked, powerful themes. | 🟡 In the mix. Structure and tension suit the branch. | ⛔ Not eligible. |
| Adapted Screenplay | ⛔ Not eligible. | ⛔ Not eligible. | 🧊 Long shot: GDT flattened the creature, who had a more sophisticated portrayal in the book. |
| Cinematography | 🟡 In the mix. Stylish though in a packed field. | 🧊 Long shot. Not a headline craft. | 🔥 Near-Lock. Trade attention has boosted its standing. |
| Production Design | 🟡 In the mix. Could show up if the film catches a wave. | ⛔ Unlikely. Not a design-forward project. | 🔥 Near-Lock. Gothic sets and period architecture dominate. |
| Costume Design | 🟡 In the mix. Gorgeous period styling though not maximalist or luxurious in the way that catches voter attention. | ⛔ Unlikely. Not a costume-driven film. | 🔥 Near-Lock. Beautiful gowns! |
| Makeup & Hairstyling | 🔥 Near-Lock. Vampiric work is highly visible. | ⛔ Unlikely. Craft does not call attention to itself. | 🔥 Near-Lock. Creature and period makeup are signature elements. |
| Sound | ✅ Strong shot. Large-scale sequences tend to score well. | 🧊 Long shot. Sound shapes much of its tension, but Weapons is not perceived as craft-forward. | 🟡 In the mix. Atmospheric design could attract votes. |
| Original Score | 🔥 Near-Lock, with a strong music theme – and Ludwig Goransson has been hitting the circuit. | 🧊 Long shot. Not a major talking point. | ✅ Strong shot. It’s a craft-forward film and Alexandre Desplat is much loved. |
| Editing | ✅ Strong shot. Pacy action may turn voters heads. | 🟡 In the mix. Rhythm and construction drive the film. | 🟡 In the mix. Could rise with full support. |
| Visual Effects | 🟡 In the mix, Thanks to practical vampire effects. | ⛔ Unlikely. Comparatively minimal VFX. | ✅ Strong shot. Hybrid practical work may appeal. |
| Casting | ✅ Strong shot. Broad ensemble with tip-to-toe excellence. | 🟡 In the mix. Ensemble quality helps its case. | 🟡 In the mix. Prominent cast and creature performance work. |
Whitlock&Pope 