|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jan 10, 2019 9:30:27 GMT
Such dickish behaviour from Farrelly, I hope he feels like a huge prick.
I mean you think he would have thought about the future and kept one eye on the prize. What a cock!
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Jan 10, 2019 11:00:03 GMT
Awards season is so exhausting. The smear campaigns are so tiresome and uninteresting.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Jan 10, 2019 18:14:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 10, 2019 19:19:24 GMT
This whole thing is stupid. So people are just going through old articles looking for inappropriate behavior. It was in an article and why didn't anyone care then?
|
|
|
Post by bruinjoe96 on Jan 10, 2019 19:28:22 GMT
So is Peter Farrelly going to be the James Franco of this awards season?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 10, 2019 20:06:31 GMT
So is Peter Farrelly going to be the James Franco of this awards season? In all likelihood, yeah. These sorts of takedowns come off so transparent to me, in that they feel like measured attempts to drum up some dirt on someone just because of their perceived awards success. The Vallelonga story broke because someone on another forum dredged up old tweets. Yes, those are more or less fair game because Vallelonga put them up there, and it is poor form on the part of Universal not to have their PR team search every single nook and cranny of social media/history surrounding the movie . . . but the motives behind it feel disingenuous to me, as if they care less about the actual material of the tweets/controversy and more because they hate Green Book and want to see it fail on behalf of other contenders.
Yes, timing is important because who gives much of a shit about some '90s director being inappropriate with his work environment today -- exposing him would simply be met with a shrug and a dismissal. But if it's a high-profile awards contender, then people stand up and take notice. But we saw with Franco that his backlash hit him hard enough to knock him from a relatively safe perch (the degree of safety is still debatable; that performance wasn't exactly up the Academy's alley), and then it went absolutely nowhere. I feel the same thing will happen here. The outrage will be loud and likely drown out the entire conversation about the film (although I suspect Farrelly's indiscretions might be overshadowed by Vallelonga's), and will only be amplified when it actually gets nominations at the Oscars. I suspect its winning chances might well have plummeted, but I feel like once the Oscars are done, people will largely just forget about it and move on.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Jan 10, 2019 20:11:16 GMT
So is Peter Farrelly going to be the James Franco of this awards season? In all likelihood, yeah. These sorts of takedowns come off so transparent to me, in that they feel like measured attempts to drum up some dirt on someone just because of their perceived awards success. The Vallelonga story broke because someone on another forum dredged up old tweets. Yes, those are more or less fair game because Vallelonga put them up there, and it is poor form on the part of Universal not to have their PR team search every single nook and cranny of social media/history surrounding the movie . . . but the motives behind it feel disingenuous to me, as if they care less about the actual material of the tweets/controversy and more because they hate Green Book and want to see it fail on behalf of other contenders.
Yes, timing is important because who gives much of a shit about some '90s director being inappropriate with his work environment today -- exposing him would simply be met with a shrug and a dismissal. But if it's a high-profile awards contender, then people stand up and take notice. But we saw with Franco that his backlash hit him hard enough to knock him from a relatively safe perch (the degree of safety is still debatable; that performance wasn't exactly up the Academy's alley), and then it went absolutely nowhere. I feel the same thing will happen here. The outrage will be loud and likely drown out the entire conversation about the film (although I suspect Farrelly's indiscretions might be overshadowed by Vallelonga's), and will only be amplified when it actually gets nominations at the Oscars. I suspect its winning chances might well have plummeted, but I feel like once the Oscars are done, people will largely just forget about it and move on.Isn't this just sad though? Digging up an old interview just to take down a movie? Vallelonga's tweet is really awful but it was written in 2015. Has anyone even cared to ask him to comment on it? This is why smear campaigns are not just tiresome to follow, they're also quite demoralizing.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 10, 2019 20:22:33 GMT
In all likelihood, yeah. These sorts of takedowns come off so transparent to me, in that they feel like measured attempts to drum up some dirt on someone just because of their perceived awards success. The Vallelonga story broke because someone on another forum dredged up old tweets. Yes, those are more or less fair game because Vallelonga put them up there, and it is poor form on the part of Universal not to have their PR team search every single nook and cranny of social media/history surrounding the movie . . . but the motives behind it feel disingenuous to me, as if they care less about the actual material of the tweets/controversy and more because they hate Green Book and want to see it fail on behalf of other contenders.
Yes, timing is important because who gives much of a shit about some '90s director being inappropriate with his work environment today -- exposing him would simply be met with a shrug and a dismissal. But if it's a high-profile awards contender, then people stand up and take notice. But we saw with Franco that his backlash hit him hard enough to knock him from a relatively safe perch (the degree of safety is still debatable; that performance wasn't exactly up the Academy's alley), and then it went absolutely nowhere. I feel the same thing will happen here. The outrage will be loud and likely drown out the entire conversation about the film (although I suspect Farrelly's indiscretions might be overshadowed by Vallelonga's), and will only be amplified when it actually gets nominations at the Oscars. I suspect its winning chances might well have plummeted, but I feel like once the Oscars are done, people will largely just forget about it and move on.Isn't this just sad though? Digging up an old interview just to take down a movie? Vallelonga's tweet is really awful but it was written in 2015. Has anyone even cared to ask him to comment on it? This is why smear campaigns are not just tiresome to follow, they're also quite demoralizing. I mean, that's just the advent of social media. It can do a lot of good, but it can also be used for bad (or, at least, non-altruistic) means. Vallelonga's tweet is reprehensible; no one's arguing that. But the question then becomes less about the quality of the film itself and more about the men behind it, and whether they should be rewarded not for their artistry but by their morality. It's something of a different situation to Bohemian Rhapsody, because Bryan Singer is someone who has been accused of using his influence in Hollywood to prey on others (and his behavior on the set of the film itself was unprofessional, seeing as he was fired). That, to me, is a more indictable issue when it comes to the awards season, because it put people's jobs, money and potentially safety at risk. Farrelly's actions, which can be taken as immature at best or assault at worst, are definitely worth discussing. But someone's personal views, unsavory as they may be, being used as a weapon against them just for the sake of undermining them for an award feels like a bridge too far.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 11, 2019 0:51:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Jan 11, 2019 1:05:48 GMT
I was mostly uninterested in the fate of Green Book at the Oscars. I really liked the movie but I don't think it should be contending for awards. But now I'd love for the Academy to stand up to the angry mob.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 11, 2019 1:58:55 GMT
The Cut article is pure garbage journalism. These tactics are getting more grating every year. Will be rooting for Green Book to win screenplay now just to laugh at all the bs outrage.
|
|
|
Post by ptacoenlover on Jan 11, 2019 3:10:47 GMT
The most bizarre thing is Daniel Craig doing publicity for Green Book and not for The Favourite.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Jan 11, 2019 3:44:45 GMT
If they want to go on and nominate it for BP still, that's fine for me, Gibson did way worse and got a BD director for his bad movie. But people actually rooting for Vallelonga's flat, manipulative and possibly false-to-history screenplay just so the Academy can make a statement is just... well... something. It'd be more reasonable to root for Mortensen who saw himself in eye of the hurricane of a misguided controversy over the n-word.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Full Member
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 998
Likes: 496
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Jan 11, 2019 4:23:44 GMT
Belafonte's comments cited in the article may have just won me over about this ... I guess, I need to give the film a rewatch ... though my concerns about its artistic merits will remain ...
So looks like, this controversy might end up doing more good to the film than harm. Maybe we should all prepare for a GB win now ... :/
|
|
rhodoraonline
Full Member
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 998
Likes: 496
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Jan 11, 2019 5:12:58 GMT
He has apologized ...
|
|
CookiesNCream
Badass
So what else is new?
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 478
|
Post by CookiesNCream on Jan 12, 2019 20:42:14 GMT
So.... it is safer to say that Green Book is no longer secure for the Oscars?
|
|
forksforest
Junior Member
Quit your shit-spitting
Posts: 483
Likes: 206
|
Post by forksforest on Jan 28, 2019 22:58:16 GMT
I'm tired
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 28, 2019 23:44:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 30, 2019 22:23:42 GMT
Do we think Green Book not getting a director nod is because of this or is it because it just isn't a very interesting movie directing-wise?
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 30, 2019 22:34:26 GMT
Do we think Green Book not getting a director nod is because of this or is it because it just isn't a very interesting movie directing-wise? Yeah, I think it's the latter. The Academy director's branch doesn't really seem to go for these kinds of achievements lately.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 30, 2019 22:56:41 GMT
Do we think Green Book not getting a director nod is because of this or is it because it just isn't a very interesting movie directing-wise? I don't think we can crack it up to backlash if Mortensen wasn't affected. And clearly AMPAS still has a lot of love for the film so it's probably the latter as Jango said.
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Feb 9, 2019 6:53:30 GMT
Ran into Nick V. in the bathroom of the TIFF premiere. True story. Seemed like kind of a cock tbh.
|
|