Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2021 13:09:30 GMT
What would you propose? It has only become more rampant and flagrant, and it is so disrespectful and (arguably) hurtful to the careers of character actors...
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 18, 2021 13:17:18 GMT
They could have a panel vote on more controversial cases on who's leading and supporting, and in cases with blatant fraud or voters disregarding even what the movie itself campaigned for (Stanfield's case), simply refuse votes in specific cases and not have them be counted.
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Mar 18, 2021 17:24:08 GMT
They already have a committee to determine if a screenplay is original or adapted when it's unclear. They could have a similar thing for this.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Mar 18, 2021 17:40:22 GMT
Acting is the only branch that forbids multiple nominations from someone in the same category, so the very first thing they should do is unban that bc it's annoying and forces a divided campaign or a burying of a worthy perf or like I'm sure with Winslet-Rev Road or Diane Keaton-Goodbar where the perf was probably in the Top 5 but canceled out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2021 18:09:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dadsburgers on Mar 18, 2021 18:39:54 GMT
I love that idea of having to donate the leading salary to campaign as supporting, but that would never happen. There should be a longlist of acting performances by category, submitted by the film (whoever does that stuff, the producers, the actors themselves? I don't know), reviewed by a committee who finalizes the categorizations and votes on/shifts what they consider fraud. I don't think this would be too hard to do objectively with the right panel. They could even designate a certain amount/percent of screentime as qualifying as Lead vs. Supporting. Then voters can only vote for performances on the longlist in the proper categories.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 18, 2021 18:45:30 GMT
What would you propose? It has only become more rampant and flagrant, and it is so disrespectful and (arguably) hurtful to the careers of character actors... No clue how to fix this. The actors are the ones that select the category so IMHO it was beyond disrespectful for them to put Lakeith in supporting actor. The freakin movie starts with his character and ends with his character. It is from his POV. This whole thing is suspect to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2021 18:51:51 GMT
What would you propose? It has only become more rampant and flagrant, and it is so disrespectful and (arguably) hurtful to the careers of character actors... No clue how to fix this. The actors are the ones that select the category so IMHO it was beyond disrespectful for them to put Lakeith in supporting actor. The freakin movie starts with his character and ends with his character. It is from his POV. This whole thing is suspect to me. I'd say it was more disrespectful to character actors who were genuinely supporting in their films like, say, Glynn Turman, David Strathairn, Bo Burnham, Colman Domingo, Charles Dance, etc... The list goes on and on. Stanfield now has the cachet that comes with "Academy Award nominee."
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 18, 2021 19:14:15 GMT
No clue how to fix this. The actors are the ones that select the category so IMHO it was beyond disrespectful for them to put Lakeith in supporting actor. The freakin movie starts with his character and ends with his character. It is from his POV. This whole thing is suspect to me. I'd say it was more disrespectful to character actors who were genuinely supporting in their films like, say, Glynn Turman, David Strathairn, Bo Burnham, Colman Domingo, Charles Dance, etc... The list goes on and on. Stanfield now has the cachet that comes with "Academy Award nominee." I understand what you are saying but the problem that I have here is that they downgraded Lakeith. He did not campaign as supporting. That means people watched the movie and thought either Jesse Plemons or Martin Sheen were the lead. Why? I would like for the people who voted that way to explain that one because there is no explanation. Even if you ask someone to describe the movie they will start with it's about a man who infiltrates the Black Panther Party. There is no other way to describe this movie.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Mar 19, 2021 0:34:31 GMT
Screen time is probably the easiest. If you have more than 45% of screen time or something then it’s automatically a leading role. This eliminates the most egregious category fraud, which is almost always leading role pretending to be supporting (Steinfield in True Grit, Mara in Carol etc.)
|
|