|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 26, 2021 18:06:12 GMT
The Academy doesn't give a damn how many Oscars you have or when did you win them if they really like your work. Two, three, four, doesn't matter anymore. Looking forward to a hologram of Katharine Hepburn picking up a fifth Oscar on her behalf one of these days. |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 26, 2021 18:06:45 GMT
To be fair, McDormand was a huge critical favorite (she was either first or second in terms of critics' prizes along with Mulligan; I gave up counting), and I think if she hadn't won her second so recently, she would've been taken far more seriously seeing as she was the lead of the overwhelming BP frontrunner. True, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Of course, none of this is to suggest that critics are or should even try to shape or predict the Oscar race. I like all awards shows being their own things and voting for what they actually like. It's just that I have just always felt like critics awards are given more credit than they are due on how much they impact the Oscars. I think critics' prizes need to be looked at because by and large, they are trying to influence the race. And I think they are successful in this to a degree. Obviously someone like Youn Yuh-jung and Maria Bakalova benefited immensely from the critics' prizes they won; they are not traditional contenders by Academy standards, so they benefited from the critical momentum that allowed for their studios to promote them heavily. There is no way that they expected Bakalova to be the force she was at the time they filmed, and A24 seemed to be sitting on Minari for a while until they saw where the wind was blowing, and then stepped it up at the time of industry prizes. Do they need to be taken as gospel? Not necessarily, but I think they do have tastes that align generally with the industry. You just have to determine outside factors (i.e. Adam Sandler was fantastic in Uncut Gems but he had baggage with voters and his film wasn't a friendly watch). |
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Apr 26, 2021 18:08:30 GMT
Critics awards are much more influential in the nomination process. Banderas, Huppert, Cotillard, and even Rampling were definitely helped by the critics.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,944
|
Post by Good God on Apr 26, 2021 18:09:31 GMT
They put people on the map. I think critics' prizes need to be looked at because by and large, they are trying to influence the race. And I think they are successful in this to a degree. I don't disagree, which is why I said, "Wait until the televised precursors and do not take critics awards too seriously." |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 26, 2021 18:14:42 GMT
Another factor to take into consideration: a posthumous narrative just isn't going to be enough on its own. Chadwick Boseman's death was one of the most monumental in terms of being a cultural "moment" since Heath Ledger's, and clearly people expected it to be enough to ensure his victory, but you need a juggernaut sweep. And Boseman's competition was strongly divided. Ahmed took a huge chunk of critics' prizes, and Hopkins got the last-minute surge that propelled him over the top. And we all saw what happened with Jack Fincher.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Apr 26, 2021 18:22:23 GMT
Another factor to take into consideration: a posthumous narrative just isn't going to be enough on its own. Chadwick Boseman's death was one of the most monumental in terms of being a cultural "moment" since Heath Ledger's, and clearly people expected it to be enough to ensure his victory, but you need a juggernaut sweep. And Boseman's competition was strongly divided. Ahmed took a huge chunk of critics' prizes, and Hopkins got the last-minute surge that propelled him over the top. And we all saw what happened with Jack Fincher. I think Ledger's Oscar gave people, including me, the false perception that a posthumous Oscar is easy to get. As far as I remember, Ledger and Finch are the only posthumous winners for acting. Even James Dean lost, and he lost with two posthumous nominations in consecutive years! |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 26, 2021 18:25:57 GMT
Another factor to take into consideration: a posthumous narrative just isn't going to be enough on its own. Chadwick Boseman's death was one of the most monumental in terms of being a cultural "moment" since Heath Ledger's, and clearly people expected it to be enough to ensure his victory, but you need a juggernaut sweep. And Boseman's competition was strongly divided. Ahmed took a huge chunk of critics' prizes, and Hopkins got the last-minute surge that propelled him over the top. And we all saw what happened with Jack Fincher. I think Ledger's Oscar gave people, including me, the false perception that a posthumous Oscar is easy to get. As far as I remember, Ledger and Finch are the only posthumous winners for acting. Even James Dean lost, and he lost with two posthumous nominations in consecutive years! I really think that the narrative might've even worked against Boseman in the end. The expectation that he was winning might've opened others up to throw support elsewhere (as we saw with the anonymous ballots), or maybe even a few voters resented the idea that it was assumed to be a done deal. If his passing had happened much closer to the ceremony (as it did with Peter Finch), then maybe the shock of the event might've swayed those voters more toward him, but the distance between his death and the ceremony might've lessened some voters' initial feelings of sorrow and sympathy. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 26, 2021 18:42:12 GMT
Boseman just was not Ledger with TDK being the highest grossing film since Titanic and the performance largely viewed as an all timer. Some people said Boseman had the performance of the year but no one was calling it one of the best performances of all time. Hopkins also appears to have been a much stronger contender than anyone Ledger had to deal with in supporting actor that year as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Apr 26, 2021 18:56:05 GMT
5. That James Franco and Anne Hathaway could do a better job than Steven Soderbergh. They really, really couldn't. Don't get me wrong, this ceremony went south in the last half-hour, but the Franco/Hathaway ceremony was grueling. Agree to disagree. Between the near-total absence of clips/pics, the awkward Union Station setting, the out of order categories, the ridiculous memoriam sequence, the lack of song performances, the bizarre musical cues, this was by far the worst Oscars I ever watched. Bad hosting is one thing, but soooo much about last night's show was bad. |
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,170 
Likes: 2,260
|
Post by speeders on Apr 26, 2021 19:27:27 GMT
In the last three years we've had a repeat winner in acting, and two of these won within three years of their last win in the same category. So I think going forward we need to stop assuming being a previous winner somehow hurts your chances. Clearly that's not the case anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 26, 2021 20:25:57 GMT
This awards season taught us the importance of in person events and screenings in normal circumstances, and of an award season of normal length.
If those two things happened Mulligan would have won, and a Golden Hollywood legend like Sophia Loren would have definitely been nominated instead of Day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Apr 28, 2021 1:04:31 GMT
1. Do not doubt Sony Picture Classics. They know what they are doing. 2. BAFTA is officially a more effective prognosticator than SAG, especially after the SAG-AFTRA expansion. 3. If you're going to be structuring your ceremony around a moment, maybe have a peek at the envelope to make sure your big moment isn't going to blow up in your face? Feel free to add your own. 1. I have decided to no longer count USC Scripter award.
2. No longer going to use "overdue" as a logic for winning an actor Oscar.
|
|
|
|
Post by tastytomatoes on Apr 28, 2021 9:40:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by michael128 on Apr 28, 2021 15:10:24 GMT
only Australians can win posthumous Oscars
|
|
