The Oscars - how legit are they really?

IvaBigWun

Can they be bought by film companies every year? The stories about Harvey Weinstein and his "campaigning" are legendary, especially with Shakespere In Love.

Are they one big clique? Joaquin Phoenix was seen smiling and in attendance at the Golden Globes but his hate for the Academies in recent years has been well documented.

Is it true there's only 43 people who decide who gets the awards every year? I must have read a wrong source because that doesnt sound right.

The Oscars - how legit are they really?

unreggd

I'd consider the Cannes awards the real deal. The Oscars seem to be a new PR tool for deciding who they want to launch. I think for the most part, they get the nominations right, but then go off on tangents to decide the winner. I love Jennifer Lawrence, but I do think her win for Silver Linings Playbook was due to the fact she's the current Hollywood it girl. I thought Jessica Chastain did better in her role in ZD30. But they're just small occurrences. I think for the most part it's balanced and legit.

Da Shins Kelly

It's mainly politics, I would say.

e_e

unreggd wrote: »

I'd consider the Cannes awards the real deal.

I think the list of Palme D'or winners overall beats the best pictures any day of the week. Funny too because The Oscars has a whole year to work with in comparison and it still often goes for the blandest, safest option.

No Hollywood bias either.

SweepTheLeg

unreggd wrote: »

I'd consider the Cannes awards the real deal. The Oscars seem to be a new PR tool for deciding who they want to launch. I think for the most part, they get the nominations right, but then go off on tangents to decide the winner. I love Jennifer Lawrence, but I do think her win for Silver Linings Playbook was due to the fact she's the current Hollywood it girl. I thought Jessica Chastain did better in her role in ZD30. But they're just small occurrences. I think for the most part it's balanced and legit.

Agree with this, The same with her performance in American Hustle. It was nothing special but she still won a Golden Globe for it. I thinks it's all the hype around her at the moment.

As for the Oscars, they are complete garbage and people like Joaquin who are always outspoken about them will never be awarded one. It's all political really.

His performance in the Master was one of a kind, then you see Jennifer Lawrence give a forgettable performance in a romcom that tons of actresses could have also pulled off, and she wins an Oscar for it.

Da Shins Kelly

SweepTheLeg wrote: »

Agree with this, The same with her performance in American Hustle. It was nothing special but she still won a Golden Globe for it. I thinks it's all the hype around her at the moment.

As for the Oscars, they are complete garbage and people like Joaquin who are always outspoken about them will never be awarded one. It's all political really.

His performance in the Master was one of a kind, then you see Jennifer Lawrence give a forgettable performance in a romcom that tons of actresses could have also pulled off, and she wins an Oscar for it.

Yeah, really they undermine their own process by shunning people who speak out against them. It just proves the point that it is all about schmoozing and staying on the right side of the right people, as well as having a promotable image. Jennifer Lawrence is a decent actress, but I think her astounding popularity has a lot to do with her offscreen persona. She's very likeable and down to earth, which is good for the image of the industry as a whole. She's a reliable ambassador for them, so to speak. Heaping awards on people like her just helps to raise her profile and in turn promotes a positive image for the industry in general. It's much easier to sell someone like Jennifer Lawrence than it is to sell someone like Joaquin Phoenix who appears a lot more stand-offish, seems to have a complicated relationship with the media and has this reputation for being "weird". So ultimately it doesn't matter that he pulls out great performances time and again and could probably act someone like Jennifer Lawrence off the screen, he just doesn't have the right image, or a reliable enough temperament.

I'd agree with the person who said that Cannes is probably a better indication of quality, as well as being more open-minded to international films. The Oscars are too safe, as well as being very Hollywood-centric.

Tony EH

Does anyone give a tinkers cuss about the Oscars anymore? It's never been an indication of anything, other than the obvious. Well, in the main categories anyhow.

And as someone already said, it's nearly always the safest option.

Personally, I cannot stand them. But I will admit to being delightfully amused by J Law :pac: when I saw her winning her statuette last year. She came across as extremely refreshing amongst the rest of the suited and dolled up bores. her personality has done more to sell her pictures to the cinema going public, than her Oscar.

FloatingVoter

Nah...I look at the Oscars the way a casual football fan watches a match. Theres usually one film I want to see do well (12 Year a Slave closely folllowed by Wolf of Wall Street) but other than that - not too concerned.
By the time the movies get to the longlist for nomination they've already succeeded in that people know they exist. e.g. Philomena probably won't take home anything but just getting onto the nominations list and getting that vital word of mouth to the US market means everything to a small(ish) movie like that.

lukin

It has slowly lost all credibility over the last twenty years. Look how long it took Martin Scorsese to win Best Director (and even then it wasn't even one of his best films that won it).
Quentin Tarantino has never won Best Director or Best Film which is laughable. Leonardo Di Caprio has never won an Oscar despite all his great performances down through the years. Although he is young enough to win one eventually.
Judi Dench gets nominated even if she only farts in a movie.
One or two good films have won it from time to time (No Country for Old Men being an example)

FloatingVoter

Its not just 20 years. There are plenty of lists out there of classics that never won the best picture oscar listed side by side with the forgettable fluff that did win that respective year.
Sometimes movies win Best Picture as a doff of the hat for a big achievement (LOTR trilogy concluding, Titanic not sinking but making billions instead).

Gillespy

It is recent but Jennifer Lawrence is a weak example to cite. She was practically an unknown when she was nominated for Winter's Bone. Critics like her and her choices and now she has that platform the world loves her for her great personality. How crediable are the SAG awards, she won that for Silver Linings too. Which was hardly your typical romcom movie either. Some people go to great lengths to disparage her sometimes.

Bipolar Joe

I can't remember who said it, but I remember hearing in an interview a director saying that the Oscar gets given to people whose "Time it is." Meaning, You've been doing good movies for a while and we like you, here's an Oscar. That's how you sometimes get good directors, actors, scriptwriters, so on, getting awards for rubbish when they should have won it a previous year for something great. Like it's your turn for an award. Sort of defeats the purpose.

LuckyLloyd

e_e wrote: »

I think the list of Palme D'or winners overall beats the best pictures any day of the week. Funny too because The Oscars has a whole year to work with in comparison and it still often goes for the blandest, safest option.

No Hollywood bias either.

Overall the Palme d'Or list is far more interesting, you're spot on. But the Oscars at least has the potential of getting things right.

No Country for Old Men
Schindler's List
The Last Emperor
The Deer Hunter
Midnight Cowboy

are the types of winners that mean you can't completely discount the award. That said, Titanic / A Beautiful Mind / The English Patient would make you wonder.

Something was lost in the late nineties. I'm still outraged that Shakespeare in Love got the nod over Saving Private Ryan tbh!!

MfMan

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Overall the Palme d'Or list is far more interesting, you're spot on. But the Oscars at least has the potential of getting things right.

No Country for Old Men
Schindler's List
The Last Emperor
The Deer Hunter
Midnight Cowboy

are the types of winners that mean you can't completely discount the award. That said, Titanic / A Beautiful Mind / The English Patient would make you wonder.

Something was lost in the late nineties. I'm still outraged that Shakespeare in Love got the nod over Saving Private Ryan tbh!!

I'm not TBH. Who'd go to all that much trouble to save Matt Damon?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

It's worth noting that this has been going on for a long time. Citizen Kane only won a single Oscar, for best Original Screenplay, largely due to William Randoph Hearst's efforts to undermine it.

FlashD

In one of the poorest years 97-98, I have never understood how Titanic raked in 11 Oscars and then beat the vastly superior LA Confidential for best picture. The Oscars most definitely lost all credibility that night.

SarahBM

I personally love the Oscars but they are very "Hollywood". And the amount of ads does be head wrecking. But still I watch it every year. M friend and I stay up drinking tea and eating biscuits and we have our prediction sheets out. I always tick the ones I WANT to win and the ones I THINK will win, because like it or not, it is political.
Sometimes they do get it right, for example Christophe Waltz winning best supporting actor for Django. I was hoping he would win.

I am surprised Ed Sheeran didnt get nominated for best original song for I See Fire from the Hobbit The Desolation of Smaug. Its an amazing song IMO, but having said that I will be quite happy for Let It Go from Frozen to win

I have lots of films to go see between now and Mar 2nd.

Tipsy McSwagger

They rarely get the best picture right

What won

---

What should have won.

1996
The English Patient

---

Fargo

1997
Titanic

---

L.A. Confidential

1998
Shakespeare in Love

---

Saving Private Ryan

1999
American Beauty

---

The Sixth Sense

2000
Gladiator

---

Gladiator

20001
A Beautiful Mind

---

TLOTR:TFOTR

2002
Chicago

---

The Pianist

2003
TLOTR:TROTK

---

Master and Commander

2004
Million Dollar Baby

---

Sideways

2005
Crash

---

Brokeback Mountain

SarahBM

I disagree re: 1999 2003 and 2005. but TOTALLY agree about 2002. I enjoyed Chicago but my god the Pianist was much better (though I thought the book was a million times better than the film.)

Shakespeare in Love - I never will understand that one. like, ever!

JP Liz V1

lukin wrote: »

It has slowly lost all credibility over the last twenty years. Look how long it took Martin Scorsese to win Best Director (and even then it wasn't even one of his best films that won it).
Quentin Tarantino has never won Best Director or Best Film which is laughable. Leonardo Di Caprio has never won an Oscar despite all his great performances down through the years. Although he is young enough to win one eventually.
Judi Dench gets nominated even if she only farts in a movie.
One or two good films have won it from time to time (No Country for Old Men being an example)

LOL but true and same with Meryl Streep

Burt Macklin

Part of the problem is the academy itself. The 2012 breakdown courtesy of wikipedia

In 2012, the results of a study conducted by The Los Angeles Times was published which revealed the demographic breakdown of approximately 88% of AMPAS' voting membership. Of the 5,100+ active voters confirmed, 94% were Caucasian, 77% were male, and 54% were found to be over the age of 60.

The people who can vote are not really representative of movie going audiences or people who work in film. Generally, they tend to like safer movies like say Shakespeare in Love, The King's Speech, etc. to more controversial or violent films like the work of someone like Scorsese or Tarantino.

The large amount of older voters also explains why Judi Dench, Meryl Streep, etc. get nominated consistently.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I read an interesting article last week about the different type of voters and what kind of films they vote for. It's by no means an accurate representation of what actually happens but some interesting points...

Sure, for the most part, they're white, male, wealthy, and old, but like any decently-sized group, there's plenty of diversity of opinion, even if not actual diversity. Tough, there has been a push to create a more diverse Academy with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Paula Patton, Michael Pena, Emannuelle Riva, Chris Tucker, Ava DuVernay, Pablo Larrain, Jafar Panahi, Steve McQueen, Todd Phillips, Lena Dunham and Danny Trejo among the 2013 invitees.

Again, the majority are likely to be more on the Old White Guy side of things, but the Academy is changing, and that's been born up in recent years by things like Best Picture nominations for "District 9," "A Serious Man," "Winter's Bone," "Black Swan," "The Tree Of Life" and "Amour," as well as last year's Directing nominations, which saw Michael Haneke and Benh Zeitlin given the nod over more traditionally establishment figures.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/oscars-whos-voting-for-what-plus-golden-globe-predictions-20140110

I also read some comments from Robert Redford made today at the opening of Sundance where he was asked about not getting a nom for All is Lost and he said the fact it's an independent film and has no major studio backing made it impossible to campaign and he wasn't at all surprised at no noms.


Just to chime in on the Jennifer Lawrence thing. I like her a lot and she's done some great films but there is a feeling like they're making up for not giving her the one she actually should have won (Winter's Bone) by nominating her for everything else she does.

Tony EH

MfMan wrote: »

I'm not TBH. Who'd go to all that much trouble to save Matt Damon?

mAtT DaeMon

Soft Falling Rain

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Just to chime in on the Jennifer Lawrence thing. I like her a lot and she's done some great films but there is a feeling like they're making up for not giving her the one she actually should have won (Winter's Bone) by nominating her for everything else she does.

But they made up for that last year. A better example would be Heath Ledger not winning best actor in 2005, and it took him having to die for them to make up for it. That being said, taking everything into account, I do think Ledger deserved the nod for TDK based on merit anyway.

lukin

Ledger would not have won that time if he had not died. Nobody said it publicly at the time as it would have been insensitive. Don't get me wrong, he was a terrific actor and is sadly missed (should have won an Oscar for Brokeback) but it was typical Hollywood schmaltzism.

Soft Falling Rain

lukin wrote: »

Ledger would not have won that time if he had not died. Nobody said it publicly at the time as it would have been insensitive. Don't get me wrong, he was a terrific actor and is sadly missed (should have won an Oscar for Brokeback) but it was typical Hollywood schmaltzism.

Most likely true but I don't think the field was particularly strong that year. Hoffman in Doubt (solid), RDJ in tropic Thunder, Josh Brolin in Milk etc etc...you could have made an argument for Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road, but I genuinely believe of the 5, Ledger was the most impressive.

But yeah, he probably would have been snubbed again had he been alive.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

But they made up for that last year. A better example would be Heath Ledger not winning best actor in 2005, and it took him having to die for them to make up for it. That being said, taking everything into account, I do think Ledger deserved the nod for TDK based on merit anyway.

Maybe they still feel really bad about it

FloatingVoter

Things like Return of The King are for cumulative effort put into the trilogy. Thats why the first movie was overlooked.
American Beauty was the best film of that year. The Sixth Sense was an overlong Twilight Zone episode with a twist that only the braindead didn't see coming.
Those career oscars are another thing that might affect this year. Jeff Bridges won for Crazy Heart (it was a lifetime achievement award in all but name). Leo is in the running for a body of work since Titanic that has been impressive. And I want to see him **** up his acceptance speech.
Even though I only got around to seeing The Pianist last year - its still a great movie. What they were snorting when they voted for Chicago is beyond me.
Titanic was given the nod for not being another Heavens Gate. Bit like thanking buying the bank manager a drink for letting you off on the mortgage.

MfMan

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Things like Return of The King are for cumulative effort put into the trilogy. Thats why the first movie was overlooked.
American Beauty was the best film of that year. The Sixth Sense was an overlong Twilight Zone episode with a twist that only the braindead didn't see coming.
Those career oscars are another thing that might affect this year. Jeff Bridges won for Crazy Heart (it was a lifetime achievement award in all but name). Leo is in the running for a body of work since Titanic that has been impressive. And I want to see him **** up his acceptance speech.
Even though I only got around to seeing The Pianist last year - its still a great movie. What they were snorting when they voted for Chicago is beyond me.
Titanic was given the nod for not being another Heavens Gate. Bit like thanking buying the bank manager a drink for letting you off on the mortgage.

Have to say, only film he has impressed me in was The Departed. Lightweight, out-of-his-depth eye candy in pretty much everything else.

johnny_ultimate

I'm amazed at how, year in year out, the Oscars seem to get even more coverage and discussion than before, despite most avowed cinephiles seemingly having long ago dismissed them as the dreck that they are. The Academy has become such a predictable, stale organisation that barring a full-on purge it doesn't look like as if it's going to have the possibility to be any more relevant for quite some time yet. The new blood added in recent years has seen some curveballs at least get nominated (and the 10 nominee best film list helps in that regard as well), but for the most part the whole thing has become a rote, unsurprising circle jerk.

Look at the best director list, for example. Now, luckily this year we actually have at least a pretty good batch of 'prestige' films (obviously individual preferences will vary from film to film), but at the same time if we looked forward 12 months ago and knew all these directors had new films coming out, any generally knowledgeable observer probably could have conjured up a damn good guess of who would be included regardless of the film's end quality (as the response to American Hustle illustrates) - and if someone like Tom Hooper or Spielberg had a new film out, you could probably safely guess they'd be included as well (the only surprise boiling down to who is excluded due to nomination limits - The Coens being a 'surprise' omission this year). The problem is that many brilliant directors are left out because they don't fit snugly into the Academy's typical criteria. While the likes of Scorsese and Cuaron did great jobs this year, the likes of Shane Carruth, Hirokazu Kore-eda, Andrew Bujalski, Richard Linklater, Joshua Oppenheimer, Noah Baumbach, Abbas Kiarostami, Abdellatif Kechiche, Park Chan-wook, Clio Barnard and many more did just as good work as any of the nominees, if not - again dependent on your own views - significantly better. They didn't stand a chance, and some of those are very well established talents.

The Academy's selective independent and foreign bias is infuriating - it's easy to say the Oscars are for celebrating mainstream American cinema (although Britons tends to be happily included), but they're clearly not opposed to including a foreign film or independent one from time to time: Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild last year, for example, both of which had a snowball's chance in hell of emerging victorious. Even discounting world cinema, in a vintage year for American independent cinema - and it really was the best I can recall - that some of the most distinctive, ambitious, progressive and accomplished films have been absolutely ignored by the biggest American film awards should be reason enough to happily discount it. It should not matter whether or not a distributor can afford to campaign for a film - the Academy should be displaying truly independent thought, seeking out and celebrating the great films and talent rather than waiting for it to come to them. It's shameful, completely ignorable stuff in its current form.

I could rant at length about how the Oscars ultimately sort of even restrict in-depth discourse about the films nominated in favour of a 'what's best' contest, and how understandable distrust of the Academy could actually have an undeservedly negative impact on a film's reputation through the inevitable 'Oscar backlash' (The Artist was particularly shoddy though ) But I'll leave it at that for now

FloatingVoter

Its a balancing act between quality and how widely distributed a film is. Out of the top 50 grossing films of last year, only 2 are in the running (Gravity and Captain Phillips) in the main categories. Thats due to the late releases of the other heavyweights of course.
So no arthouse obscurities but also no Ironman 3. Pre Jaws / Star Wars the Blockbuster season didn't exist. Plenty of people watching the Oscars (hell...even some of the people voting for them) probably think Her and Nebraska are about as left-field as it gets. But if you're sitting in Tralee or Tosspot, Idaho the odds are they'll be the only ones you're within driving distance of seeing in a cinema.
The Oscars are mainstream and always have been. If they weren't and the Academy were voting on what Spielberg, Scorcese and Tarantino have playing in their own private cinemas nobody would watch them.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The Guardian are doing their own film awards this year and the public get to vote. Interestingly they're not distinguishing between "actor" and "actress". They've got males vs females in these categories. Would be interesting to see the Oscars, or any of the bigger awards shows, doing that. Not sure the women would stand a chance this year, I think that category is particularly week.

Something else I'm amazed about the Oscars is how Julia Roberts for Erin Brokovich beat Ellen Burstyn for Requiem for a Dream in 2000.

Tony EH

MfMan wrote: »

Have to say, only film he has impressed me in was The Departed. Lightweight, out-of-his-depth eye candy in pretty much everything else.

I'm not a big fan either. Always a little bemused at the verbal accolades thrown his way, to be honest.

Da Shins Kelly

Yeah, I don't get the DiCaprio love either. He's grand, but nothing to write home about.

Burt Macklin

Leo has been pretty good in most of his post titanic roles, excellent in some (Wolf of wall street, django unchained), but I don't think any of his performances have really merited an oscar yet. In the years when he was nominated, it would be hard to argue that he was hard done by.

On the other hand though, it has spawned a hilarious meme

*This may only make sense if you've seen Inglorious Basterds

JP Liz V1

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Things like Return of The King are for cumulative effort put into the trilogy. Thats why the first movie was overlooked.
American Beauty was the best film of that year. The Sixth Sense was an overlong Twilight Zone episode with a twist that only the braindead didn't see coming.
Those career oscars are another thing that might affect this year. Jeff Bridges won for Crazy Heart (it was a lifetime achievement award in all but name). Leo is in the running for a body of work since Titanic that has been impressive. And I want to see him **** up his acceptance speech.
Even though I only got around to seeing The Pianist last year - its still a great movie. What they were snorting when they voted for Chicago is beyond me.
Titanic was given the nod for not being another Heavens Gate. Bit like thanking buying the bank manager a drink for letting you off on the mortgage.

Even before Titanic, he was impressive in The Basketball Diaries, This Boy's Life and What's Eating Gilbert Grape (should have won best supporting actor academy award for the latter imo)

Sleepy

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Even before Titanic, he was impressive in The Basketball Diaries, This Boy's Life and What's Eating Gilbert Grape (should have won best supporting actor academy award for the latter imo)

The Basketball Diaries was his best performance imo. but in general I find him to be a fairly solid, dependable lead who can act enough to justify his looks getting him cast (a younger Brad Pitt in many ways!).

For me, Halle Berry's 2002 Oscar was the one that opened my eyes up to the campaigning involved and I've paid them very little heed since. Looking back I should have figured it out far sooner, I can only plead relative youth at the time as a (poor) defense!

Tipsy McSwagger

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Even before Titanic, he was impressive in The Basketball Diaries, This Boy's Life and What's Eating Gilbert Grape (should have won best supporting actor academy award for the latter imo)

I would have given it to Ralph Fiennes for Schindlers List.

FloatingVoter

I'm not saying he's Jeff Bridges territory (overlooked for so long - give him something) - just don't write him off. That was a hell of a performance in Wolf. And he's a hell of a lot more acting wise than just a pretty face. The same as Clooney and Pitt, he's worked his ass off to prove he can act. Robert Redford is the prime example of someone who was blessed with looks and watched the ugly guys take the Oscar.
Christian Bale - it was an average movie in any year. I can't actually think of anything he's done thats been impressive. Anybody can be Batman. As for Out of the Furnace ... I've seen revenge flicks so many times, its just another one. He's a character actor who fades into the background. His makeup teams have made him a star.
12 Years a Slave - I've a hunch this is going to sweep Direction, Film / Production and the lead will go the way of Neeson in Schindlers. First Leads make events happen rather than react to events. I think this is the year that either Di Caprio or more like likely Bruce Dern takes the acting gong.
If Bruce Dern wins I'll be happy even though I haven't even seen Nebraska yet. He deserves it for forty years in the wilderness. My original point was don't write off a career being awarded.

goose2005

Burt Macklin wrote: »

Part of the problem is the academy itself. The 2012 breakdown courtesy of wikipedia



The people who can vote are not really representative of movie going audiences or people who work in film. Generally, they tend to like safer movies like say Shakespeare in Love, The King's Speech, etc. to more controversial or violent films like the work of someone like Scorsese or Tarantino.

The large amount of older voters also explains why Judi Dench, Meryl Streep, etc. get nominated consistently.

Argo is a classic example of playing to Academy voters - 2 of the heroes are boring old Hollywood men, exactly the sort of person who votes.

Da Shins Kelly

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I would have given it to Ralph Fiennes for Schindlers List.

Yeah, there's no way DiCaprio should have won ahead of Fiennes that year. He hasn't done a performance yet that I think is particularly outstanding.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I think DiCaprio did better work before Titanic. I'd go so far as to say that since Titanic propelled him into super stardom he's made some very poor choices as to what he works on. He's by no means the worst actor working but given the quality of his early work he hasn't really delivered on that promise.

JP Liz V1

Let's not forget the curse, sometimes winning one can hinder a career e.g. Halle, Cuba, Adrien, Mira and so on

FloatingVoter

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Let's not forget the curse, sometimes winning one can hinder a career e.g. Halle, Cuba, Adrien, Mira and so on

The curse exists but its mainly self-inflicted - goes along the lines of "theres my respect, now lets make some cash". Can't blame them for a movie or two but yeah, some people have completely disappeared into B-moviedom after a win.

IvaBigWun

lukin wrote: »

Quentin Tarantino has never won Best Director or Best Film which is laughable.

Given his performance here I dont think he "plays the game" too well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk

IvaBigWun

goose2005 wrote: »

Argo is a classic example of playing to Academy voters - 2 of the heroes are boring old Hollywood men, exactly the sort of person who votes.

What is the average age of the Academy voter and how many of them are there?

dark crystal

IvaBigWun wrote: »

What is the average age of the Academy voter and how many of them are there?

There are approximately 6,000 members, although the Academy does not publicly disclose its membership.

However, In 2012, the results of a study conducted by The Los Angeles Times was published which revealed the demographic breakdown of approximately 88% of AMPAS' voting membership. Of the 5,100+ active voters confirmed, 94% were Caucasian, 77% were male, and 54% were found to be over the age of 60. 33% of voting members are former nominees (14%) and winners (19%).


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awards

Patty O Furniture

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Can they be bought by film companies every year? The stories about Harvey Weinstein and his "campaigning" are legendary, especially with Shakespere In Love.

Are they one big clique? Joaquin Phoenix was seen smiling and in attendance at the Golden Globes but his hate for the Academies in recent years has been well documented.

Is it true there's only 43 people who decide who gets the awards every year? I must have read a wrong source because that doesnt sound right.

The Oscars - how legit are they really?

Look at Harvey getting Michelle Obama to announce Best Film last year & afaik he had an ex White House PR guy working for him & was behind all the publicity for Silver Linings Playbook & was behind The Artist too, the first Silent film to win an Oscar for 70yrs.

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Its not just 20 years. There are plenty of lists out there of classics that never won the best picture oscar listed side by side with the forgettable fluff that did win that respective year.
Sometimes movies win Best Picture as a doff of the hat for a big achievement (LOTR trilogy concluding, Titanic not sinking but making billions instead).

Katherine Bigelow in 2010 won Best Picture & Director for The Hurt Locker over Avatar & worse as she was James Cameron's ex wife

Gillespy wrote: »

It is recent but Jennifer Lawrence is a weak example to cite. She was practically an unknown when she was nominated for Winter's Bone. Critics like her and her choices and now she has that platform the world loves her for her great personality. How crediable are the SAG awards, she won that for Silver Linings too. Which was hardly your typical romcom movie either. Some people go to great lengths to disparage her sometimes.

That's just the actors alone voting for other actors & not open to the outside isnt it.

I was over on IMDB one time & saw a thread saying "Who Doesnt Like JLaw" you can't please everyone!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Just to chime in on the Jennifer Lawrence thing. I like her a lot and she's done some great films but there is a feeling like they're making up for not giving her the one she actually should have won (Winter's Bone) by nominating her for everything else she does.

True she deserved it for Winter's Bone, but lost out to Natalie Portman-Black Swan, although i haven't seen Black Swan, i've seen Winters Bone a few times, as it's a haunting film to watch, as i saw it first on Sky Arts as they didnt show films then!

Also her earlier films aren't your average films for a teenager to be in, as some good performances there IMHO.

But as someone else said it's her offscreen persona that endears her to the public for example watching one red party (Oscars), everyone else on diets, she mentions that she had a Philly Cheese steak for Lunch & another tellin her PA don't forget the sauce on her McDonalds

You might as well enjoy it while you can, as there are other young actors coming up like Hailee Steinfeld in the upcoming Divergent.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Patty O Furniture wrote: »

True she deserved it for Winter's Bone, but lost out to Natalie Portman-Black Swan, although i haven't seen Black Swan, i've seen Winters Bone a few times, as it's a haunting film to watch, as i saw it first on Sky Arts as they didnt show films then!

Also her earlier films aren't your average films for a teenager to be in, as some good performances there IMHO.

But as someone else said it's her offscreen persona that endears her to the public for example watching one red party (Oscars), everyone else on diets, she mentions that she had a Philly Cheese steak for Lunch & another tellin her PA don't forget the sauce on her McDonalds

You might as well enjoy it while you can, as there are other young actors coming up like Hailee Steinfeld in the upcoming Divergent.

Steinfeld isn't in Divergent, is she? And since True Grit she's been in some really bad films, Ender's Game was a huge flop and Romeo and Juliet was too. You're maybe thinking of Shailene Woodley? She's got a few high profile things coming out including that awful Fault in Our Starts film, and she's got some good work under her belt already, The Descendants, The Spectacular Now etc. etc. but to be honest I can't see anyone taking the spotlight from Lawrence like that. As long as she keeps making smart choices and doesn't have a breakdown she'll be one of the top actresses for many years to come, and she is genuinely a very good actress so it's not just a popularity thing and someone else will come along that the public find more entertaining and suddenly Lawrence won't be able to get a job.

Patty O Furniture

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Steinfeld isn't in Divergent, is she? And since True Grit she's been in some really bad films, Ender's Game was a huge flop and Romeo and Juliet was too. You're maybe thinking of Shailene Woodley? She's got a few high profile things coming out including that awful Fault in Our Starts film, and she's got some good work under her belt already, The Descendants, The Spectacular Now etc. etc. but to be honest I can't see anyone taking the spotlight from Lawrence like that. As long as she keeps making smart choices and doesn't have a breakdown she'll be one of the top actresses for many years to come, and she is genuinely a very good actress so it's not just a popularity thing and someone else will come along that the public find more entertaining and suddenly Lawrence won't be able to get a job.

Yeah, wrong person, it was late, with one eye open Must look out for that film, as i heard good things on White Bird in a Blizzard as it was at Sundance afaik, i think she's in the new Spiderman film as well. The Descendants was good as i found out it's the same director on Nebraska.

That's what probably makes her an all-rounder, there's no airs or graces off or on screen, as last year the tide was turning on Anne Hathaway i hear she was a bit of a diva.

Jennifer has another film to make with O'Russell soon & the yet to be released Serena (made after Silver Linings) looks like she'll be busy for a while inc Dumb & Dumber 2 i hear