Oscar Nominations

Discussion of the actors, directors and film-makers who 'made it all happen'
User avatar
CinemaInternational
Posts: 810
Joined: October 23rd, 2022, 3:12 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by CinemaInternational »

Swithin wrote: January 25th, 2023, 8:33 am
Feinberg wrote: January 25th, 2023, 8:24 am The biggest Oscar joke of all has to be Top Gun: Maverick's nomination for Best Screenplay. It has the most inane dialogue I have heard in a long-time.
I was listening to the Good Morning America chat before the Oscar announcement, which took place as part of their show. They seem to think of Oscar nominations as a reward for popularity, rather than excellence. That seems to be the trend these days, unfortunately.
I watched the nominations on Good Morning America as well. Everyone knows that the ratings for the Oscars have fallen for years and that like GMA, the Oscars air on ABC. ABC tries to use the films that made money as a crutch to help drive up viewership. The one year in recent memory where the ratings were not down from the year below was the year that much of the lineup was made of big box office films. That said, there are very few titles Hollywood picks out now for top honors. The list of films that conceivably had a shot at getting into the Best picture race this year was probably around 20. And with 10 slots, that means that 50 % get in.
User avatar
Swithin
Posts: 1734
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 5:25 pm

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by Swithin »

CinemaInternational wrote: January 27th, 2023, 1:47 pm
Swithin wrote: January 25th, 2023, 8:33 am
Feinberg wrote: January 25th, 2023, 8:24 am The biggest Oscar joke of all has to be Top Gun: Maverick's nomination for Best Screenplay. It has the most inane dialogue I have heard in a long-time.
I was listening to the Good Morning America chat before the Oscar announcement, which took place as part of their show. They seem to think of Oscar nominations as a reward for popularity, rather than excellence. That seems to be the trend these days, unfortunately.
I watched the nominations on Good Morning America as well. Everyone knows that the ratings for the Oscars have fallen for years and that like GMA, the Oscars air on ABC. ABC tries to use the films that made money as a crutch to help drive up viewership. The one year in recent memory where the ratings were not down from the year below was the year that much of the lineup was made of big box office films. That said, there are very few titles Hollywood picks out now for top honors. The list of films that conceivably had a shot at getting into the Best picture race this year was probably around 20. And with 10 slots, that means that 50 % get in.
I think that's why they expanded the Best Film nominations from 5 to 10 a few years ago; as a sop to the popular.
User avatar
HoldenIsHere
Posts: 641
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 7:07 pm

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by HoldenIsHere »

Swithin wrote: January 25th, 2023, 8:33 am
Feinberg wrote: January 25th, 2023, 8:24 am The biggest Oscar joke of all has to be Top Gun: Maverick's nomination for Best Screenplay. It has the most inane dialogue I have heard in a long-time.
I was listening to the Good Morning America chat before the Oscar announcement, which took place as part of their show. They seem to think of Oscar nominations as a reward for popularity, rather than excellence. That seems to be the trend these days, unfortunately.
The Oscars have always been about popularity, not necessarily about popularity with the public, but certainly popularity with the voting members of the Academy.
Some Academy members (possibly the majority) vote for movies and performances that they have not actually seen.
User avatar
Feinberg
Posts: 246
Joined: October 23rd, 2022, 9:25 am

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by Feinberg »

One thing the Oscars has always been guilty of is a lack of imagination. All those Sound Awards for the Hollywood Musicals comes to mind when all it really was was a bunch of actors on a sound stage singing to playback.
I can see the need and draw where people of colour are the heroes instead of victims or servants. The latter had long become incredibly boring and must be a major complaint for minorities. But as far as awards for acting excellence go I much prefer this year's work by Hong Chau and Bryan Tyree Henry to that of Angela Bassett, Viola Davis and Danielle Deadwyler. I think it is because Chau and Henry played characters that could have been done by an actor of any race. The characters were not race dependant and that is refreshing. The three black woman I mentioned played heroic, noble, stoic characters who were prone to incredible outbursts of pent up rage. Good in their own right and they certainly gave us what was advertised on the tin but not exactly what I would call the best performances of the year.
I have seen a few film critics belly-aching about snubs at this years acting Oscars. Tom Cruise and Viola Davis are mentioned. Who are these new film critics anyway? I've noticed that a number of the young male critics sport weird hairdos and dress like Peewee Herman and they yell a lot.
User avatar
HoldenIsHere
Posts: 641
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 7:07 pm

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by HoldenIsHere »

skimpole wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:21 am
HoldenIsHere wrote: January 29th, 2023, 12:33 am The Oscars have always been about popularity, not necessarily about popularity with the public, but certainly popularity with the voting members of the Academy.
Some Academy members (possibly the majority) vote for movies and performances that they have not actually seen.
Can you name some major awards that benefit from this strange habit?
I'm not sure what you mean by "benefit."

It's just a fact: those making the Oscar nominations and ultimately those voting for the winners are not required to have actually seen all the movies in the category or even the movie (or performance) they vote for.
User avatar
Hibi
Posts: 1354
Joined: July 3rd, 2008, 1:22 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by Hibi »

skimpole wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:21 am
HoldenIsHere wrote: January 29th, 2023, 12:33 am The Oscars have always been about popularity, not necessarily about popularity with the public, but certainly popularity with the voting members of the Academy.
Some Academy members (possibly the majority) vote for movies and performances that they have not actually seen.
Can you name some major awards that benefit from this strange habit?
Well voters don't have to document if they've actually watched what/whom they are voting for, so I'm sure it happens. I think only in the foreign film category they have to do this at special screenings (or at least used to).
User avatar
Hibi
Posts: 1354
Joined: July 3rd, 2008, 1:22 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by Hibi »

User avatar
CinemaInternational
Posts: 810
Joined: October 23rd, 2022, 3:12 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by CinemaInternational »

Hibi wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:51 pm https://variety.com/2023/awards/awards/ ... tid=Zxz2cZ

This is hilarious.
It's getting many people up in arms, that's for sure. A lot of people feel that it was a rigged nomination
User avatar
HoldenIsHere
Posts: 641
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 7:07 pm

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by HoldenIsHere »

CinemaInternational wrote: January 30th, 2023, 7:15 pm
Hibi wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:51 pm https://variety.com/2023/awards/awards/ ... tid=Zxz2cZ

This is hilarious.
It's getting many people up in arms, that's for sure. A lot of people feel that it was a rigged nomination
The studios that spent thousands of dollars on "for your consideration" campaigns and didn't get a nomination are upset that a performance in a movie from a studio that had no budget to mount a campaign succeeded in getting a nomination based on members being asked informally (through social media and other ways) to watch a movie and judge if Andrea Riseborough's performance merited a nomination.

This is an example of a nomination truly based on merit.

If the Academy rescinds Andrea Riseborough's nomination, the Oscars are truly a sham.
User avatar
Feinberg
Posts: 246
Joined: October 23rd, 2022, 9:25 am

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by Feinberg »

Hibi wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:49 pm
skimpole wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:21 am
HoldenIsHere wrote: January 29th, 2023, 12:33 am The Oscars have always been about popularity, not necessarily about popularity with the public, but certainly popularity with the voting members of the Academy.
Some Academy members (possibly the majority) vote for movies and performances that they have not actually seen.
Can you name some major awards that benefit from this strange habit?
Well voters don't have to document if they've actually watched what/whom they are voting for, so I'm sure it happens. I think only in the foreign film category they have to do this at special screenings (or at least used to).
Once the longlists and nominations are announced by BAFTA one is required to confirm that you have seen all of the listed films in each category you are allowed to vote in before you can cast your vote. Of course, you could tell a fib. Voting is done online now and you cannot vote unless you have ticked off the films that you have seen.
User avatar
Feinberg
Posts: 246
Joined: October 23rd, 2022, 9:25 am

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by Feinberg »

HoldenIsHere wrote: January 31st, 2023, 1:22 am
CinemaInternational wrote: January 30th, 2023, 7:15 pm
Hibi wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:51 pm https://variety.com/2023/awards/awards/ ... tid=Zxz2cZ

This is hilarious.
It's getting many people up in arms, that's for sure. A lot of people feel that it was a rigged nomination
The studios that spent thousands of dollars on "for your consideration" campaigns and didn't get a nomination are upset that a performance in a movie from a studio that had no budget to mount a campaign succeeded in getting a nomination based on members being asked informally (through social media and other ways) to watch a movie and judge if Andrea Riseborough's performance merited a nomination.

This is an example of a nomination truly based on merit.

If the Academy rescinds Andrea Riseborough's nomination, the Oscars are truly a sham.
I agree. It's not like it is a case of Chill Wills telling voters that a vote for him is a vote for God.
User avatar
Hibi
Posts: 1354
Joined: July 3rd, 2008, 1:22 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by Hibi »

HoldenIsHere wrote: January 31st, 2023, 1:22 am
CinemaInternational wrote: January 30th, 2023, 7:15 pm
Hibi wrote: January 30th, 2023, 3:51 pm https://variety.com/2023/awards/awards/ ... tid=Zxz2cZ

This is hilarious.
It's getting many people up in arms, that's for sure. A lot of people feel that it was a rigged nomination
The studios that spent thousands of dollars on "for your consideration" campaigns and didn't get a nomination are upset that a performance in a movie from a studio that had no budget to mount a campaign succeeded in getting a nomination based on members being asked informally (through social media and other ways) to watch a movie and judge if Andrea Riseborough's performance merited a nomination.

This is an example of a nomination truly based on merit.

If the Academy rescinds Andrea Riseborough's nomination, the Oscars are truly a sham.
Yes, this could start a trend and put the money people behind all the Oscar campaigning out of business! LOL. I'm sure that's what's behind all this. If this upstart could sneak in........:D


For me, the big surprise was Ana de Armas making the cut for that reviled Blonde movie.
User avatar
Hibi
Posts: 1354
Joined: July 3rd, 2008, 1:22 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by Hibi »



Who he?
User avatar
LawrenceA
Posts: 937
Joined: October 22nd, 2022, 1:04 pm

Re: Oscar Nominations

Post by LawrenceA »

What an awful, nothing interview.

He keeps bringing up that "no one saw this movie."

Aren't Academy members sent screeners/streaming codes? The box office take has nothing to do with that.

And then he brings up the race of the people they chose to mention that "campaigned" for her. Ugh.

Also, I've seen several articles taking about the "racist" Best Actress category, and they put Ana De Armas in with the "white people". Are Latin people no longer POC (she's Cuban)? Does POC only refer to black or Asian?
Watching until the end.
Post Reply