|
Post by iheartamyadams on Dec 7, 2021 21:29:19 GMT
Yeah, I was probably a bit too excitable about Gaga challenging for the win, as I forgot how mediocre House Of Gucci's reviews were. Being The Ricardos already has a better RT score than HOG (and I suspect it'll end up being much better) and that score is nothing amazing right now. Anything is possible though. I don’t think 3-4 point difference on RT means much in the bigger picture. Gucci has a better MC score, Gaga has better reviews, box office and the NY win. I think she’s probably second in this race atm.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 7, 2021 21:41:57 GMT
Yeah, I was probably a bit too excitable about Gaga challenging for the win, as I forgot how mediocre House Of Gucci's reviews were. Being The Ricardos already has a better RT score than HOG (and I suspect it'll end up being much better) and that score is nothing amazing right now. Anything is possible though. I don’t think 3-4 point difference on RT means much in the bigger picture. Gucci has a better MC score, Gaga has better reviews, box office and the NY win. I think she’s probably second in this race atm. Not only this ^ but on some level Gucci's low scores are different entirely in their context - they're a talking point about what Gaga triumphed over (or whatever) IN the film itself........it's a unique film - love it or hate it ........Being The Ricardos may get Kidman a nod - I see her as 3rd I guess atm anyway - but it's not a water cooler film in the same sense.......as HoG love it or hate it by its nature attracts a different level of zeal and passion for people in its camp........I'm not sure there's people willing to "fight" for Kidman unless this gets a huge hit ot she wins LA Film Critics which doesn't seem likely
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on Dec 7, 2021 21:59:47 GMT
Expected overreactions from the pundits. Looking forward to reviews from the real critics!
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 7, 2021 22:23:15 GMT
Didn't know @tyler was such a savage! Anyway, while I still think that Kidman can totally get nominated, I do have questions about some of the logic presented in this thread. Why are the audience scores of "Spencer" supposed to be significant while the mixed reviews of this movie aren't? If the average AMPAS member ain't gonna be bothered to check this movie's Metacritic score then why is he busy looking up the "Spencer" Rotten Tomatoes audience scores or its Box Office Mojo page?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 7, 2021 22:43:07 GMT
Didn't know @tyler was such a savage! Anyway, while I still think that Kidman can totally get nominated, I do have questions about some of the logic presented in this thread. Why are the audience scores of "Spencer" supposed to be significant while the mixed reviews of this movie aren't? If the average AMPAS member ain't gonna be bothered to check this movie's Metacritic score then why is he busy looking up the "Spencer" Rotten Tomatoes audience scores or its Box Office Mojo page? No one is saying AMPAS members will check RT audience scores. But those scores can reflect the "accesibility" of the film. Whether basic audiences (many of whom are AMPAS members) will enjoy it as much as critics. Those audience scores matter not because voters will look them up, but because they suggest non-critic audiences in general won't enjoy it as much as critics, which is very much an issue with Pablo Larraín films, and one of the reasons I believe Jackie did not go as far in the race as people thought it would (the audience scores for Jackie were also far lower than the critics scores). Like Spencer, it's a very esoteric auteur movie that baffled some general audiences. There seems to have been enough reaction to Being The Ricardos to suggest it's something of a "crowdpleaser " (and Aaron Sorkin doesn't really make hard-to-digest arthouse movies. He is Hollywood through and through), so mixed reviews probably are not a death sentence for something like this, as long as basic audiences eat it up. It's also very much about the industry, which is an advantage. I guess it comes down to the type of film it is and audience expectations.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Dec 7, 2021 22:59:25 GMT
I don't understand why metacritic is ever brought up in Oscar discussions. Absolutely nobody in AMPAS knows or cares if a film has a 71 or a 96. At least with Rottentomatoes, you get the sense that a 34% or something will not go unnoticed, and will probably find its way to twitter at least and embarrass the film. Metacritic? Come on. At best it'll give you hints as to where NYFCC/LAFCA might go, but even there the gap between an 88 and a 100 is scarcely significant. Was Birdman (87) or NCFOM (91) "worse received" than Boyhood (100)???
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 7, 2021 23:06:59 GMT
I don't understand why metacritic is ever brought up in Oscar discussions. Absolutely nobody in AMPAS knows or cares if a film has a 71 or a 96. At least with Rottentomatoes, you get the sense that a 34% or something will not go unnoticed, and will probably find its way to twitter at least and embarrass the film. Metacritic? Come on. At best it'll give you hints as to where NYFCC/LAFCA might go, but even there the gap between an 88 and a 100 is scarcely significant. Was Birdman (87) or NCFOM (91) "worse received" than Boyhood (100)??? That's exactly right - and RT of course just measures pass or fail - the graveyard of Oscar prognistcators is littered with movies 95%+ on RT anyway
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 7, 2021 23:12:35 GMT
Didn't know @tyler was such a savage! Anyway, while I still think that Kidman can totally get nominated, I do have questions about some of the logic presented in this thread. Why are the audience scores of "Spencer" supposed to be significant while the mixed reviews of this movie aren't? If the average AMPAS member ain't gonna be bothered to check this movie's Metacritic score then why is he busy looking up the "Spencer" Rotten Tomatoes audience scores or its Box Office Mojo page? No one is saying AMPAS members will check RT audience scores. But those scores can reflect the "accesibility" of the film. Whether basic audiences (many of whom are AMPAS members) will enjoy it as much as critics. Those audience scores matter not because voters will look them up, but because they suggest non-critic audiences in general won't enjoy it as much as critics, which is very much an issue with Pablo Larraín films, and one of the reasons I believe Jackie did not go as far in the race as people thought it would (the audience scores for Jackie were also far lower than the critics scores). Like Spencer, it's a very esoteric auteur movie that baffled some general audiences. There seems to have been enough reaction to Being The Ricardos to suggest it's something of a "crowdpleaser " (and Aaron Sorkin doesn't really make hard-to-digest arthouse movies. He is Hollywood through and through), so mixed reviews probably are not a death sentence for something like this, as long as basic audiences eat it up. It's also very much about the industry, which is an advantage. I guess it comes down to the type of film it is and audience expectations. I understood that you weren't literally talking about AMPAS members logging on RT or MC but I guess to me both of these things (reviews and general reception) are equally significant/insignificant while trying to feel how a movie will do awards-wise. Those audience scores are interesting to take into account but one still has to remember that AMPAS folk is not quite that crowd. We can certainly call them basic and all that but they can appreciate a more esoteric and strange film. Just as they can ignore a big audience favorite. And I think those internet audience scores are particularly unimportant when it comes to the acting categories. Sure, there're plenty of Spencer detractors and there'll certainly be those among the Academy too but what truly matters is that Stewart is beloved by pretty much everyone in it. And she campaigns like crazy. And we all know that the combination of a raved performance and intense campaigning is basically the name of the game. And critics are interesting to think about in this matter because their opinions on Kidman seem to be pretty split. Which may be an indication of what the overall consensus on her performance is gonna look like. And I think reviews do somewhat matter because critics are still part of the industry. I firmly believe that the industry is not oblivious to how the trades are responding to movies and that it may affect their views on stuff. BUT when the industry loves a movie, it LOVES a movie. And no reviews are gonna matter. We've seen that numerous times lately - Joker, Jojo Rabbit, Bohemian Rhapsody, Vice. And frankly I do feel that Being the Ricardos can also get plenty of supporters regardless of its reviews. Maybe not to the extent of those movies but support is support. There will probably be a segment of voters who're gonna eat this stuff up in one go. And Sorkin has certainly been quite well regarded by AMPAS in the 2010s.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 7, 2021 23:15:18 GMT
Holy shit, who knew that futuretrunks would end up as the Great Uniter!
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 7, 2021 23:17:03 GMT
I don't understand why metacritic is ever brought up in Oscar discussions. Absolutely nobody in AMPAS knows or cares if a film has a 71 or a 96. At least with Rottentomatoes, you get the sense that a 34% or something will not go unnoticed, and will probably find its way to twitter at least and embarrass the film. Metacritic? Come on. At best it'll give you hints as to where NYFCC/LAFCA might go, but even there the gap between an 88 and a 100 is scarcely significant. Was Birdman (87) or NCFOM (91) "worse received" than Boyhood (100)??? I think it's just brought up to see how well-reviewed a movie is, no? What I personally don't get is why Letterboxd is used so heavily by some predictors. But this is mostly an AW problem, not ours. Like, why the heck does a fairly niche and specific site is all of a sudden an Oscar-meter?
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Dec 7, 2021 23:18:02 GMT
I don't understand why metacritic is ever brought up in Oscar discussions. Absolutely nobody in AMPAS knows or cares if a film has a 71 or a 96. At least with Rottentomatoes, you get the sense that a 34% or something will not go unnoticed, and will probably find its way to twitter at least and embarrass the film. Metacritic? Come on. At best it'll give you hints as to where NYFCC/LAFCA might go, but even there the gap between an 88 and a 100 is scarcely significant. Was Birdman (87) or NCFOM (91) "worse received" than Boyhood (100)??? I don’t think the scores themselves are that relevant and I’m sure the academy doesn’t know or care what they are but I think Metacritic is a better indication of critical acclaim than Rotten Tomatoes is who’s yes or no scoring system is pretty silly. I think the exact scores aren’t really the point they just give a vague sense of the critical acclaim for what is is worth and metacritic is probably a bit more accurate in giving us an idea. That being said Rotten Tomatoes is probably the more important site in the film business because many people use that site to help them decide what to watch. That is why tomato scores are frequently used in ads. Only people like us pay attention to Metacritic.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 7, 2021 23:18:07 GMT
No one is saying AMPAS members will check RT audience scores. But those scores can reflect the "accesibility" of the film. Whether basic audiences (many of whom are AMPAS members) will enjoy it as much as critics. Those audience scores matter not because voters will look them up, but because they suggest non-critic audiences in general won't enjoy it as much as critics, which is very much an issue with Pablo Larraín films, and one of the reasons I believe Jackie did not go as far in the race as people thought it would (the audience scores for Jackie were also far lower than the critics scores). Like Spencer, it's a very esoteric auteur movie that baffled some general audiences. There seems to have been enough reaction to Being The Ricardos to suggest it's something of a "crowdpleaser " (and Aaron Sorkin doesn't really make hard-to-digest arthouse movies. He is Hollywood through and through), so mixed reviews probably are not a death sentence for something like this, as long as basic audiences eat it up. It's also very much about the industry, which is an advantage. I guess it comes down to the type of film it is and audience expectations. I understood that you weren't literally talking about AMPAS members logging on RT or MC but I guess to me both of these things (reviews and general reception) are equally significant/insignificant while trying to feel how a movie will do awards-wise. Those audience scores are interesting to take into account but one still has to remember that AMPAS folk is not quite that crowd. We can certainly call them basic and all that but they can appreciate a more esoteric and strange film. Just as they can ignore a big audience favorite. And I think those internet audience scores are particularly unimportant when it comes to the acting categories. Sure, there're plenty of Spencer detractors and there'll certainly be those among the Academy too but what truly matters is that Stewart is beloved by pretty much everyone in it. And she campaigns like crazy. And we all know that the combination of a raved performance and intense campaigning is basically the name of the game. And critics are interesting to think about in this matter because their opinions on Kidman seem to be pretty split. Which may be an indication of what the overall consensus on her performance is gonna look like. And I think reviews do somewhat matter because critics are still part of the industry. I firmly believe that the industry is not oblivious to how the trades are responding to movies and that it may affect their views on stuff. BUT when the industry loves a movie, it LOVES a movie. And no reviews are gonna matter. We've seen that numerous times lately - Joker, Jojo Rabbit, Bohemian Rhapsody, Vice. And frankly I do feel that Being the Ricardos can also get plenty of supporters regardless of its reviews. Maybe not to the extent of those movies but support is support. There will probably be a segment of voters who're gonna eat this stuff up in one go. And Sorkin has certainly been quite well regarded by AMPAS in the 2010s. Good analysis. Can't really add much more to that
|
|
sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,769
Likes: 4,894
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Dec 7, 2021 23:22:37 GMT
I don't understand why metacritic is ever brought up in Oscar discussions. Absolutely nobody in AMPAS knows or cares if a film has a 71 or a 96. At least with Rottentomatoes, you get the sense that a 34% or something will not go unnoticed, and will probably find its way to twitter at least and embarrass the film. Metacritic? Come on. At best it'll give you hints as to where NYFCC/LAFCA might go, but even there the gap between an 88 and a 100 is scarcely significant. Was Birdman (87) or NCFOM (91) "worse received" than Boyhood (100)??? I think people use them since they are one of the few available scoring metric tools people can see to ascertain the "quality" and "merit" of a film in the leadup to Oscar nominations, since you'd think that judging the "best" of the year from AMPAS view would include critically acclaimed movies. On the one hand, those tools can be helpful in determining which films will be in the conversation for industry nominations but more than anything those two sites along with critics top 10 lists help us determine who are the critic darling films of the year that the film critics will want to push for industry awards success. At the end of the day though the critics and AMPAS members are different people and they are going to like and champion different things. Critics will tend to aim more highbrow, while certain segments of AMPAS will lean towards more the middlebrow, conventional movies that make them feel good when they leave a screening, which is why Green Book won Best Picture a few years ago and a film like King Richard is in the running for a Best Picture nomination. RT and MC are just tools to help us see how a film is received and the RT Audience Scores is another. On AW, some are even looking at Letterboxd scores now to see and help in their predictions. It's a roll of the dice at the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 8, 2021 2:34:48 GMT
Yeah, I was probably a bit too excitable about Gaga challenging for the win, as I forgot how mediocre House Of Gucci's reviews were. Being The Ricardos already has a better RT score than HOG (and I suspect it'll end up being much better) and that score is nothing amazing right now. Anything is possible though. I don’t think 3-4 point difference on RT means much in the bigger picture. Gucci has a better MC score, Gaga has better reviews, box office and the NY win. I think she’s probably second in this race atm. It won't be a 3-4 point difference on RT though. Being The Ricardos is at 70% on RT now and trending upwards as more reviews come in (for context, it started the day on 52% Rotten, so things looked pretty bad at the start). This is why we need to take a measured wait and see approach instead of deciding that something within the first 5 minutes is toast. I made the same mistake with The Last Duel, and reviews then got a lot better (it's the catastrophic box office that did in it's hopes). House Of Gucci is at 61% on RT, and can't get any better as there are no more reviews to come. BTR has potentially up to 200 more reviews to come, so the spread could theoretically get higher than 20 points on RT depending on how much higher BTR can go. We don't know yet. As I said, it's looking like the reviews will be good enough. The RT score will look pretty respectable and that is all a film like BTR needs. And while Kidman has some negatives (as does Gaga) she has got several calling her performance a "career best" (which is incredibly impressive, considering her career. And all due respect to Gaga, but a review calling Kidman’s performance a career best means a lot more than a review calling Gaga's turn a career best). The vast majority of reviews for Kidman are still positives/raves. I'd say their notices are about on par. It's a wait and see, but I think Kidman is still in it to win it, and I wouldn't necessarily put Gaga over her yet. Kidman has the role (and the narrative) to still go all the way.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 8, 2021 3:18:17 GMT
Rising on Rotten Tomatoes (76% from Top Critics as well). Reports of this film's death were probably a tad premature.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 8, 2021 3:29:30 GMT
Yeah, those reviews should be enough to get Nicole the nom. Don't think the win is necessarily on the cards though.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Dec 8, 2021 15:05:09 GMT
I don’t think 3-4 point difference on RT means much in the bigger picture. Gucci has a better MC score, Gaga has better reviews, box office and the NY win. I think she’s probably second in this race atm. It won't be a 3-4 point difference on RT though. Being The Ricardos is at 70% on RT now and trending upwards as more reviews come in (for context, it started the day on 52% Rotten, so things looked pretty bad at the start). This is why we need to take a measured wait and see approach instead of deciding that something within the first 5 minutes is toast. I made the same mistake with The Last Duel, and reviews then got a lot better (it's the catastrophic box office that did in it's hopes). House Of Gucci is at 61% on RT, and can't get any better as there are no more reviews to come. BTR has potentially up to 200 more reviews to come, so the spread could theoretically get higher than 20 points on RT depending on how much higher BTR can go. We don't know yet. As I said, it's looking like the reviews will be good enough. The RT score will look pretty respectable and that is all a film like BTR needs. And while Kidman has some negatives (as does Gaga) she has got several calling her performance a "career best" (which is incredibly impressive, considering her career. And all due respect to Gaga, but a review calling Kidman’s performance a career best means a lot more than a review calling Gaga's turn a career best). The vast majority of reviews for Kidman are still positives/raves. I'd say their notices are about on par. It's a wait and see, but I think Kidman is still in it to win it, and I wouldn't necessarily put Gaga over her yet. Kidman has the role (and the narrative) to still go all the way. It’s down to 65% Not really sure about these 80+ RT predictions, though I agree that she could get the nom. These reviews are in the same ballpark as Tammy Faye, Respect, Gucci, ect and they all seem to be in play.
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on Dec 9, 2021 2:17:26 GMT
“The Lucy in “Being the Ricardos” is scarcely interested in messy politics. Mainly she plays the role of the jealous, suspicious wife and harridan star who everyone really does love even if she’s a bitch. That shortchanges and flattens Ball, despite Kidman’s efforts. She and Bardem are both miscast, but Kidman is a particularly off fit for Ball, whose physical dexterity and ductile physiognomy, her rubber-band mouth and astonished eyes, are imprinted in our collective brain.
As if to compensate, Kidman and Sorkin have tried to re-create Ball’s signature looks with some unfortunate prosthetics and assorted other tweaks. Kidman’s cheeks have been widened and her brow altered but the net result is that she looks less like Ball and more like an uncanny valley Glenn Close.”
LMAO. These reviews are so fucking good. I’ve been laughing at this one all day.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Dec 9, 2021 2:38:31 GMT
I genuinely feel bad for her.
It’s not a great performance, but you can feel that she’s putting in a lot of effort to make it work. And even while being very miscast, I felt that she was occasionally able to capture her essence.
A lot of these reviews just feel mean spirited and nasty for the sake of it. Almost like a competition on who can be more witty in their pans of the film and her work.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 9, 2021 3:19:55 GMT
Kidman’s cheeks have been widened and her brow altered but the net result is that she looks less like Ball and more like an uncanny valley Glenn Close.” Bahahahaha this is brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 9, 2021 4:42:30 GMT
It won't be a 3-4 point difference on RT though. Being The Ricardos is at 70% on RT now and trending upwards as more reviews come in (for context, it started the day on 52% Rotten, so things looked pretty bad at the start). This is why we need to take a measured wait and see approach instead of deciding that something within the first 5 minutes is toast. I made the same mistake with The Last Duel, and reviews then got a lot better (it's the catastrophic box office that did in it's hopes). House Of Gucci is at 61% on RT, and can't get any better as there are no more reviews to come. BTR has potentially up to 200 more reviews to come, so the spread could theoretically get higher than 20 points on RT depending on how much higher BTR can go. We don't know yet. As I said, it's looking like the reviews will be good enough. The RT score will look pretty respectable and that is all a film like BTR needs. And while Kidman has some negatives (as does Gaga) she has got several calling her performance a "career best" (which is incredibly impressive, considering her career. And all due respect to Gaga, but a review calling Kidman’s performance a career best means a lot more than a review calling Gaga's turn a career best). The vast majority of reviews for Kidman are still positives/raves. I'd say their notices are about on par. It's a wait and see, but I think Kidman is still in it to win it, and I wouldn't necessarily put Gaga over her yet. Kidman has the role (and the narrative) to still go all the way. It’s down to 65% Not really sure about these 80+ RT predictions, though I agree that she could get the nom. These reviews are in the same ballpark as Tammy Faye, Respect, Gucci, ect and they all seem to be in play. At the time of writing this, it went back up to 70%. There's no point doing this back and forth till a lot more reviews are as the score will keep going up or down, but you are right that it will probably not hit 80%, though it's not impossible. I think it'll be 70+ though ( probably 75-ish) which will still be almost 15 points higher than House Of Gucci
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 9, 2021 4:49:21 GMT
I genuinely feel bad for her. It’s not a great performance, but you can feel that she’s putting in a lot of effort to make it work. And even while being very miscast, I felt that she was occasionally able to capture her essence. A lot of these reviews just feel mean spirited and nasty for the sake of it. Almost like a competition on who can be more witty in their pans of the film and her work. You are being super dramatic here (though I know you hang on AwardsWorthy, where everything gets overdramatized.lol!). You and idiots like wattsnew (shocker ) keep focusing on the negative notices of Kidman, when the positives and raves by far outweigh it. There’s nothing to feel bad about about for Kidman. Let's not act like this isn't an overall acclaimed performance because a few reviews want to snark on her. I actually did something similar with Benedict Cumberbatch in Power Of The Dog. Focused on his negative reviews or claims that he was miscast (and he did get more than a few. And a some were pretty scathing) , when it was clear that the raves or positives far outweighed it, so it didn't really matter. Same for Gaga....there are reviews out there snarking on her "bad accent" or calling her performance campy or like something out of a bad soap opera, but the positive reviews far outweigh it, so it's kinda irrelevant. It's a nothingburger. It's super easy to find pans/snarky notices for an acclaimed performance and hyper-focus on them to the point where you make it seem like it outweighed the majority positives. You need to be careful of that (just like I sometimes need to be, to be fair). The critical consensus on Rotten Tomatoes reads: "Being The Ricardos can't truly hope to capture it's subject's brilliant starpower, but Nicole Kidman has a ball with Aaron Sorkin 's spitfire dialogue " So what is there to feel sorry for, exactly . She's clearly the standout performance in the film according to the majority of reviews. Unless the agenda here is to remind us that she got some negative reviews as well (like 95% of contenders, including frontrunners like the aforementioned Cumberbatch and Gaga).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 9, 2021 5:07:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 9, 2021 5:22:32 GMT
Even if this tanks into the 50's I don't think there's any way Kidman misses here. Lots of lone acting nods for movies with mediocre reviews even in lead categories and her campaign is going to be huge. Although as pacinoyes said, you need to look at the context of bad reviews too. For House of Gucci Gaga still gets praised even in the bad reviews and nobody's saying it's mediocre or boring. You remember it even if you didn't like it, which is probably the most important factor for picking up awards votes. It reminds me a bit of the situation with Joker a couple years ago, although HoG obviously does not have that level of commercial success. But I think it could overperform with awards relative to its critic scores in a similar way. Don't see that happening here where the negative reviews seem like complete pans even if there are less of them. Also yikes @ that makeup in those pics above.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 9, 2021 5:22:40 GMT
“The Lucy in “Being the Ricardos” is scarcely interested in messy politics. Mainly she plays the role of the jealous, suspicious wife and harridan star who everyone really does love even if she’s a bitch. That shortchanges and flattens Ball, despite Kidman’s efforts. She and Bardem are both miscast, but Kidman is a particularly off fit for Ball, whose physical dexterity and ductile physiognomy, her rubber-band mouth and astonished eyes, are imprinted in our collective brain. As if to compensate, Kidman and Sorkin have tried to re-create Ball’s signature looks with some unfortunate prosthetics and assorted other tweaks. Kidman’s cheeks have been widened and her brow altered but the net result is that she looks less like Ball and more like an uncanny valley Glenn Close.” LMAO. These reviews are so fucking good. I’ve been laughing at this one all day. Sis, Kidman is probably going to be nominated for an Oscar for this. It's certainly no Diana . You should worry about Naomi Watts and her dead career instead of looking for negative notices about Kidman in an acclaimed performance.
|
|