|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 1, 2019 12:10:05 GMT
Marcia Gay Harden won with a lot less precursors than Regina King. But they, like Mark Rylance are very respected in Hollywood.
Sylvester Stallone had a horrible reputation for being a mediocre actor making bad movies. He essentially played the Rocky character for 40 years.
Previous winners Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone will vote split - neither are front runners.
Lack of passion for Amy Adams. Vice is really Christian Bale's film. Can't win Oscar without major precursors. Weisz is favored to win BAFTA.
The supporting categories tends to favor the critics favorites. Willem Dafoe and Laurie Metcalf were the few exceptions. Rylance was the critics favorite his year.
Yes, Stallone is a Razzie favorite and made bad movies, but that doesn't mean he was not a respected actor in Hollywood. You're conflating somebody who stars in bad movies with lack of respect. Stallone has been around since the 70s, and before the 21st century starred in a lot of popular films. Stallone, per IMDB and Wiki, won Utah, St. Louis, Southeastern, Phoenix, Oklahoma, National Board of Review, Las Vegas, Georgia, Denver, and Austin. That's 10, and I didn't count online or the fact that he won the Black Film Critics award for Best supporting actor. Rylance won Boston, London, NY, NSFC, Phoenix, Toronto, and Vancouver. That's 7. Stallone was the critics circle champion. You also said more untruth with the last paragraph. Marcia Gay Harden only won NY film critics. Alan Arkin only won Vancouver. How many did James Coburn win for Affliction? How about Michael Caine for the Cider House Rules? I could go on. If Ali wins for Green Book, he would beat out critical favorite Richard E. Grant. Are you predicting Grant to win? Whoever wins the BAFTA, unless it's Foy or Robbie, will probably win the Oscar.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Feb 1, 2019 22:32:20 GMT
Marcia Gay Harden won with a lot less precursors than Regina King. But they, like Mark Rylance are very respected in Hollywood.
Sylvester Stallone had a horrible reputation for being a mediocre actor making bad movies. He essentially played the Rocky character for 40 years.
Previous winners Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone will vote split - neither are front runners.
Lack of passion for Amy Adams. Vice is really Christian Bale's film. Can't win Oscar without major precursors. Weisz is favored to win BAFTA.
The supporting categories tends to favor the critics favorites. Willem Dafoe and Laurie Metcalf were the few exceptions. Rylance was the critics favorite his year.
Yes, Stallone is a Razzie favorite and made bad movies, but that doesn't mean he was not a respected actor in Hollywood. You're conflating somebody who stars in bad movies with lack of respect. Stallone has been around since the 70s, and before the 21st century starred in a lot of popular films. Stallone, per IMDB and Wiki, won Utah, St. Louis, Southeastern, Phoenix, Oklahoma, National Board of Review, Las Vegas, Georgia, Denver, and Austin. That's 10, and I didn't count online or the fact that he won the Black Film Critics award for Best supporting actor. Rylance won Boston, London, NY, NSFC, Phoenix, Toronto, and Vancouver. That's 7. Stallone was the critics circle champion. You also said more untruth with the last paragraph. Marcia Gay Harden only won NY film critics. Alan Arkin only won Vancouver. How many did James Coburn win for Affliction? How about Michael Caine for the Cider House Rules? I could go on. If Ali wins for Green Book, he would beat out critical favorite Richard E. Grant. Are you predicting Grant to win? Whoever wins the BAFTA, unless it's Foy or Robbie, will probably win the Oscar.
Stallone has been a Hollywood joke for years. Just because someone has been around doesn't constitute respect with his peers. The majority of Stallone's critic wins were with small regional groups. Rylance placing 2nd with LAFC is more prestigious than winning SE, GA, Denver, Austin, etc. If you look at the last 10 years or so, the majority of the supporting Oscar winners were also the critics favorite. Again, not every single winner - but the majority.
BAFTA will likely be Weizs, with the home country advantage. But she will likely vote split with Stone at Oscars - since neither have dominated the precursors. I can't see BAFTA giving Adams a win over The Favourite.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Feb 1, 2019 22:34:14 GMT
Guys , enough with that silly debate ! Regina King has that Oscar in the bag !
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 2, 2019 0:20:02 GMT
Yes, Stallone is a Razzie favorite and made bad movies, but that doesn't mean he was not a respected actor in Hollywood. You're conflating somebody who stars in bad movies with lack of respect. Stallone has been around since the 70s, and before the 21st century starred in a lot of popular films. Stallone, per IMDB and Wiki, won Utah, St. Louis, Southeastern, Phoenix, Oklahoma, National Board of Review, Las Vegas, Georgia, Denver, and Austin. That's 10, and I didn't count online or the fact that he won the Black Film Critics award for Best supporting actor. Rylance won Boston, London, NY, NSFC, Phoenix, Toronto, and Vancouver. That's 7. Stallone was the critics circle champion. You also said more untruth with the last paragraph. Marcia Gay Harden only won NY film critics. Alan Arkin only won Vancouver. How many did James Coburn win for Affliction? How about Michael Caine for the Cider House Rules? I could go on. If Ali wins for Green Book, he would beat out critical favorite Richard E. Grant. Are you predicting Grant to win? Whoever wins the BAFTA, unless it's Foy or Robbie, will probably win the Oscar.
Stallone has been a Hollywood joke for years. Just because someone has been around doesn't constitute respect with his peers. The majority of Stallone's critic wins were with small regional groups. Rylance placing 2nd with LAFC is more prestigious than winning SE, GA, Denver, Austin, etc. If you look at the last 10 years or so, the majority of the supporting Oscar winners were also the critics favorite. Again, not every single winner - but the majority.
BAFTA will likely be Weizs, with the home country advantage. But she will likely vote split with Stone at Oscars - since neither have dominated the precursors. I can't see BAFTA giving Adams a win over The Favourite.
You have produced ZERO evidence that the Hollywood community doesn't like Stallone. ZERO. As for the critics circle awards, you just moved the goal posts. Never mentioned size or so-called prestigious value. What precisely makes one kind of critics circle award MORE prestigious than the other? Is it membership size and/or age of the award? There are only two national film critic circles, besides Broadcast Film Critics awards, and they are National Board of Review and National Film Critics Society. Every other one is regional based.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 2, 2019 0:31:57 GMT
You have produced ZERO evidence that the Hollywood community doesn't like Stallone. ZERO. As for the critics circle awards, you just moved the goal posts. Never mentioned size or so-called prestigious value. What precisely makes one kind of critics circle award MORE prestigious than the other? Is it membership size and/or age of the award? There are only two national film critic circles, besides Broadcast Film Critics awards, and they are National Board of Review and National Film Critics Society. Every other one is regional based. The National Board of Review are kind of their own beast, and largely aren't classified alongside the rest of the critics' awards, because they aren't made up of film critics but rather a committee of "knowledgeable film enthusiasts, academics, and filmmakers." It might seem like splitting hairs, but they are usually grouped away from critics' bodies.There are three critics' bodies that are largely agreed upon to be the "big three." LAFCA, NYFCC and NSFC. They are the longest-running, have the biggest membership, and have the highest profile. Boston is probably next on the list, but it's not been around as long. It doesn't really matter how many critics' awards you get from the regionals (although they're surely nice to have, especially if you scoop a bunch of them), but people take notice of the winners of LAFCA/NYFCC/NSFC than they do for Atlanta or Utah or Hawaii, simply because the majority of the big-name reviewers are part of that aforementioned trinity, and thus their opinion carries more "weight" than the latter. Of course, critics' prizes mean very little when it comes to industry prizes, but what they can do is start up a narrative that might be too loud for the industry to ignore. Sometimes they do (Hawke), but other times they don't (possibly King). As for Stallone being disliked in Hollywood, read some of the pieces that were coming out about him at the time of his Oscar nomination, when pundits were talking about how he was being called a boor and a slob and telling horror stories about working with him, as well as the accusations that were coming his way in the wake of the #metoo movement (well after he lost the Oscar, but the story had been out there in the ether before then). For what it's worth, I don't think Stallone lost because he's unpopular in some Hollywood circles; I think he lost because Mark Rylance is one of the most well-respected actors alive and they saw their chance to reward him.
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Feb 2, 2019 0:45:28 GMT
Someone 'round here declared Adams as a lock People never learn.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Feb 2, 2019 1:08:23 GMT
Stallone has been a Hollywood joke for years. Just because someone has been around doesn't constitute respect with his peers. The majority of Stallone's critic wins were with small regional groups. Rylance placing 2nd with LAFC is more prestigious than winning SE, GA, Denver, Austin, etc. If you look at the last 10 years or so, the majority of the supporting Oscar winners were also the critics favorite. Again, not every single winner - but the majority.
BAFTA will likely be Weizs, with the home country advantage. But she will likely vote split with Stone at Oscars - since neither have dominated the precursors. I can't see BAFTA giving Adams a win over The Favourite.
You have produced ZERO evidence that the Hollywood community doesn't like Stallone. ZERO. As for the critics circle awards, you just moved the goal posts. Never mentioned size or so-called prestigious value. What precisely makes one kind of critics circle award MORE prestigious than the other? Is it membership size and/or age of the award? There are only two national film critic circles, besides Broadcast Film Critics awards, and they are National Board of Review and National Film Critics Society. Every other one is regional based. I never said he wasn't liked. I said he wasn't RESPECTED as an actor with his peers. Big difference. His range has always been very limited. There was no way the Academy was going to give someone an Oscar for a role that he had repeated in at least a half a dozen films.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 2, 2019 3:17:37 GMT
You have produced ZERO evidence that the Hollywood community doesn't like Stallone. ZERO. As for the critics circle awards, you just moved the goal posts. Never mentioned size or so-called prestigious value. What precisely makes one kind of critics circle award MORE prestigious than the other? Is it membership size and/or age of the award? There are only two national film critic circles, besides Broadcast Film Critics awards, and they are National Board of Review and National Film Critics Society. Every other one is regional based. I never said he wasn't liked. I said he wasn't RESPECTED as an actor with his peers. Big difference. His range has always been very limited. There was no way the Academy was going to give someone an Oscar for a role that he had repeated in at least a half a dozen films. Still no evidence he wasn't respected by his peers. If Stallone wasn't well respected, why did we get a standing ovation at the Globes? Were they all faking it?
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Feb 2, 2019 3:34:30 GMT
If Stallone wasn't well respected, why did we get a standing ovation at the Globes? Were they all faking it? Hollywood is like the fakest group of people on earth so how would that surprise anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Feb 2, 2019 3:40:23 GMT
You have produced ZERO evidence that the Hollywood community doesn't like Stallone. ZERO. As for the critics circle awards, you just moved the goal posts. Never mentioned size or so-called prestigious value. What precisely makes one kind of critics circle award MORE prestigious than the other? Is it membership size and/or age of the award? There are only two national film critic circles, besides Broadcast Film Critics awards, and they are National Board of Review and National Film Critics Society. Every other one is regional based. The National Board of Review are kind of their own beast, and largely aren't classified alongside the rest of the critics' awards, because they aren't made up of film critics but rather a committee of "knowledgeable film enthusiasts, academics, and filmmakers." It might seem like splitting hairs, but they are usually grouped away from critics' bodies.There are three critics' bodies that are largely agreed upon to be the "big three." LAFCA, NYFCC and NSFC. They are the longest-running, have the biggest membership, and have the highest profile. Boston is probably next on the list, but it's not been around as long. It doesn't really matter how many critics' awards you get from the regionals (although they're surely nice to have, especially if you scoop a bunch of them), but people take notice of the winners of LAFCA/NYFCC/NSFC than they do for Atlanta or Utah or Hawaii, simply because the majority of the big-name reviewers are part of that aforementioned trinity, and thus their opinion carries more "weight" than the latter. Of course, critics' prizes mean very little when it comes to industry prizes, but what they can do is start up a narrative that might be too loud for the industry to ignore. Sometimes they do (Hawke), but other times they don't (possibly King). According to Wikipedia, they are grouped with American Film Critic Association, and are the OLDEST of them all. National Board of ReviewI have NEVER heard LA, NY, and NSFC being the big three before. Sounds like something you made up on the spot. KC film critics have been around since 1966. The Boston Film Critics have been around since 1981, and they only have 21 members, which is one of the fewest memberships out there. What about Chicago, D.C, and Dallas? Those are big markets as well, and have film critics marked by Metacritic and RottenTomatoes as so-called elite. All what we're doing here is moving the goal posts and picking and choosing which critics circle groups we think are "prestigious" and which ones are not. There needs to be a consistent standard and there's not. But you're correct that critics circle groups or whatever you want to classify as, are irrelevant compared to the Globes, Critics Choice (the biggest and most impact critics circle group), the Guilds, and BAFTAs. As for Stallone being seen as snob by some people, I have to say, what's new? This is a very common criticism. Think about it: Brando and Penn had the same reputation -- actually worse -- and they have TWO Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Feb 2, 2019 4:06:30 GMT
LA, NY and NSFC have always been the Big 3 (hence people celebrating the fact that Hawke and King both won the Big 3 this season), as far as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 2, 2019 4:12:55 GMT
The National Board of Review are kind of their own beast, and largely aren't classified alongside the rest of the critics' awards, because they aren't made up of film critics but rather a committee of "knowledgeable film enthusiasts, academics, and filmmakers." It might seem like splitting hairs, but they are usually grouped away from critics' bodies.There are three critics' bodies that are largely agreed upon to be the "big three." LAFCA, NYFCC and NSFC. They are the longest-running, have the biggest membership, and have the highest profile. Boston is probably next on the list, but it's not been around as long. It doesn't really matter how many critics' awards you get from the regionals (although they're surely nice to have, especially if you scoop a bunch of them), but people take notice of the winners of LAFCA/NYFCC/NSFC than they do for Atlanta or Utah or Hawaii, simply because the majority of the big-name reviewers are part of that aforementioned trinity, and thus their opinion carries more "weight" than the latter. Of course, critics' prizes mean very little when it comes to industry prizes, but what they can do is start up a narrative that might be too loud for the industry to ignore. Sometimes they do (Hawke), but other times they don't (possibly King). According to Wikipedia, they are grouped with American Film Critic Association, and are the OLDEST of them all. National Board of ReviewI have NEVER heard LA, NY, and NSFC being the big three before. Sounds like something you made up on the spot. KC film critics have been around since 1966. The Boston Film Critics have been around since 1981, and they only have 21 members, which is one of the fewest memberships out there. What about Chicago, D.C, and Dallas? Those are big markets as well, and have film critics marked by Metacritic and RottenTomatoes as so-called elite. All what we're doing here is moving the goal posts and picking and choosing which critics circle groups we think are "prestigious" and which ones are not. There needs to be a consistent standard and there's not. But you're correct that critics circle groups or whatever you want to classify as, are irrelevant compared to the Globes, Critics Choice (the biggest and most impact critics circle group), the Guilds, and BAFTAs. As for Stallone being seen as snob by some people, I have to say, what's new? This is a very common criticism. Think about it: Brando and Penn had the same reputation -- actually worse -- and they have TWO Oscars. The Big 3 critics thing is definitely not made up and it’s weird you have never heard of it.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Feb 2, 2019 4:19:11 GMT
I have NEVER heard LA, NY, and NSFC being the big three before. But everyone else has.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Feb 2, 2019 16:49:55 GMT
The National Board of Review are kind of their own beast, and largely aren't classified alongside the rest of the critics' awards, because they aren't made up of film critics but rather a committee of "knowledgeable film enthusiasts, academics, and filmmakers." It might seem like splitting hairs, but they are usually grouped away from critics' bodies.There are three critics' bodies that are largely agreed upon to be the "big three." LAFCA, NYFCC and NSFC. They are the longest-running, have the biggest membership, and have the highest profile. Boston is probably next on the list, but it's not been around as long. It doesn't really matter how many critics' awards you get from the regionals (although they're surely nice to have, especially if you scoop a bunch of them), but people take notice of the winners of LAFCA/NYFCC/NSFC than they do for Atlanta or Utah or Hawaii, simply because the majority of the big-name reviewers are part of that aforementioned trinity, and thus their opinion carries more "weight" than the latter. Of course, critics' prizes mean very little when it comes to industry prizes, but what they can do is start up a narrative that might be too loud for the industry to ignore. Sometimes they do (Hawke), but other times they don't (possibly King). According to Wikipedia, they are grouped with American Film Critic Association, and are the OLDEST of them all. National Board of ReviewI have NEVER heard LA, NY, and NSFC being the big three before. Sounds like something you made up on the spot. KC film critics have been around since 1966. The Boston Film Critics have been around since 1981, and they only have 21 members, which is one of the fewest memberships out there. What about Chicago, D.C, and Dallas? Those are big markets as well, and have film critics marked by Metacritic and RottenTomatoes as so-called elite. All what we're doing here is moving the goal posts and picking and choosing which critics circle groups we think are "prestigious" and which ones are not. There needs to be a consistent standard and there's not. But you're correct that critics circle groups or whatever you want to classify as, are irrelevant compared to the Globes, Critics Choice (the biggest and most impact critics circle group), the Guilds, and BAFTAs. As for Stallone being seen as snob by some people, I have to say, what's new? This is a very common criticism. Think about it: Brando and Penn had the same reputation -- actually worse -- and they have TWO Oscars. No, it wasn't something made up on the spot. It is very common knowledge - to anyone with any knowledge of film awards.
Brando and Penn are actually very well respected as actors in the industry. Penn is not a press darling, but they don't vote for the Oscars.
So on Oscar night, if Sam Rockwell announces the Oscar Goes To Regina King...
what would your justification be? why did that happen - when your arguments says that it shouldn't?
|
|