Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 14:14:01 GMT
pacinoyes - Till's ravaged post-mortem body is shown in vivid detail, though - one could argue that a scene of violence wasn't necessary in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 25, 2023 14:16:26 GMT
I wouldn’t call it bizarre, because historically timing is everything when it comes to these things. It’s just that this is the clearest example of that we’ve had. I mean more in the sense of the film that was rewarded (barely released with no campaign) - voters had to actively seek this one out if they truly wanted to consider it. To me, the fact that this campaign worked for this film - that is truly bizarre. Would voters have it on their laptop so they’d just need to click a link?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 14:17:41 GMT
I mean more in the sense of the film that was rewarded (barely released with no campaign) - voters had to actively seek this one out if they truly wanted to consider it. To me, the fact that this campaign worked for this film - that is truly bizarre. Would voters have it on their laptop so they’d just need to click a link? It's my understanding that there was no money for screeners?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 25, 2023 14:19:59 GMT
pacinoyes - Till's ravaged post-mortem body is shown in vivid detail, though - one could argue that a scene of violence wasn't necessary in this instance. Oh "one could argue" is my exact point - one could argue anything, always - and one could always argue "race" - and apparently the director of this film chooses to argue it here. I will say her decision not to show it made more sense before I saw the film - than it did after I saw it where it played as compromised .........she didn't make a particularly good movie about a very important subject. Her movie played false imo - and while Deadwyler didn't (at all, she was great) ........she wasn't helped by that choice .........again imo. The director has more outrage over the reaction to her movie than the actual content of her movie
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 14:20:06 GMT
Would voters have it on their laptop so they’d just need to click a link? It's my understanding that there was no money for screeners? The film was readily available on digital streaming platforms they use in lieu of physical screeners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 14:22:38 GMT
It's my understanding that there was no money for screeners? The film was readily available on digital streaming platforms they use in lieu of physical screeners. On their own dime, though - I get that most Academy members are incredibly wealthy, but this definitely is NOT something they're used to doing when considering a film for Oscar nominations.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 14:26:55 GMT
The film was readily available on digital streaming platforms they use in lieu of physical screeners. On their own dime, though - I get that most Academy members are incredibly wealthy, but this definitely is NOT something they're used to doing when considering a film for Oscar nominations. I mean, it’s not really any different than reading FYCs in the trades. They just happened to see a blurb from Edward Norton instead of Variety. And it probably doesn’t cost that much to upload a movie link into the Academy screener site. A lot of this momentum was self-funded instead of from (ironically enough) Momentum Studios, which is unusual but probably a lot more common than we know considering how much of this is so reliant on networking. It’s just that it happened in such a brief window and it seemed like spamming to a memetic level, and we weren’t distracted by a larger campaign around it.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 25, 2023 15:03:31 GMT
I 100% guarantee the posters here that think the Risebourough campaign was “gross” don’t have an actual issue with the tactic, just the results. I’ll go further and say some of them would be praising the creativity of it if it was for a non-white actress or even if she got in with Williams and de Armas out. And there you go, someone said what we were all thinking.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 25, 2023 15:06:25 GMT
I 100% guarantee the posters here that think the Risebourough campaign was “gross” don’t have an actual issue with the tactic, just the results. I’ll go further and say some of them would be praising the creativity of it if it was for a non-white actress or even if she got in with Williams and de Armas out. Depends on who it is. If it's someone like Kanye then no.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 25, 2023 15:07:49 GMT
I 100% guarantee the posters here that think the Risebourough campaign was “gross” don’t have an actual issue with the tactic, just the results. I’ll go further and say some of them would be praising the creativity of it if it was for a non-white actress or even if she got in with Williams and de Armas out. Depends on who it is. If it's someone like Kanye then no. The fucking facepalm I just did. Proved his whole point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 15:12:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 25, 2023 15:16:58 GMT
The film was readily available on digital streaming platforms they use in lieu of physical screeners. On their own dime, though - I get that most Academy members are incredibly wealthy, but this definitely is NOT something they're used to doing when considering a film for Oscar nominations. Ehh, who knows which links were available for them. For example, the movie's digital screener was available on the SAG website for everyone to see via a simple Vimeo link while pretty much all the other screeners could be accessed only via the SAG members' award PINs. I'm sure the Academy members got the same free digital screener. I'm sure it doesn't cost a dime to upload a film on Vimeo and just send the link to voters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 15:20:35 GMT
On their own dime, though - I get that most Academy members are incredibly wealthy, but this definitely is NOT something they're used to doing when considering a film for Oscar nominations. Ehh, who knows which links were available for them. For example, the movie's digital screener was available on the SAG website for everyone to see via a simple Vimeo link while pretty much all the other screeners could be accessed only via the SAG members' award PINs. I'm sure the Academy members got the same free digital screener. I'm sure it doesn't cost a dime to upload a film on Vimeo and just send the link to voters. Okay, fine. You both have worn me down. I don't think I'll ever not be surprised that she was actually nominated, though - it's just how I feel.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jan 25, 2023 15:25:17 GMT
I 100% guarantee the posters here that think the Risebourough campaign was “gross” don’t have an actual issue with the tactic, just the results. I’ll go further and say some of them would be praising the creativity of it if it was for a non-white actress or even if she got in with Williams and de Armas out. Errr...no. I like to think I have little something called integrity. I'd find the whole copy and paste campaign with my celebrity friends gross and desperate, no matter who did it. If Danielle Deadwyler was pulling that shit in order to get nominated. I'd actively be rooting against her to get nominated. I'd root against anyone who did that. Those are just my particular principles. Anyone else is free to think how they wish, and I can only speak for myself. But under no circumstances would I ever praise the "creativity" of that stunt. Risbourough is just the one desperate enough to actually do it, so she'll have to take the flack.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 25, 2023 15:28:29 GMT
Ehh, who knows which links were available for them. For example, the movie's digital screener was available on the SAG website for everyone to see via a simple Vimeo link while pretty much all the other screeners could be accessed only via the SAG members' award PINs. I'm sure the Academy members got the same free digital screener. I'm sure it doesn't cost a dime to upload a film on Vimeo and just send the link to voters. Okay, fine. You both have worn me down. I don't think I'll ever not be surprised that she was actually nominated, though - it's just how I feel. I actually think that Variety article makes the (still surprising) nomination a bit more understandable since it basically traces the start of the campaign to October. Of course it became open to all of us in the midst of Oscar voting but who knows what kind of tomfoolery went on behind the scenes? Maybe they were secretly sharing links and planning to vote for her all along Ultimately we never fully know what kind of campaigning goes on behind the scenes. Aside from Riseborough, one great example of that will always be Caleb Deschanel getting nominated for Best Cinematography for Never Look Away despite his only "precursor" being the fact that he was in the Camerimage competition (and didn't win anything). We'll never know what kind of campaigning went on behind closed doors but we sure know that it worked!
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 16:11:44 GMT
I 100% guarantee the posters here that think the Risebourough campaign was “gross” don’t have an actual issue with the tactic, just the results. I’ll go further and say some of them would be praising the creativity of it if it was for a non-white actress or even if she got in with Williams and de Armas out. Errr...no. I like to think I have little something called integrity. I'd find the whole copy and paste campaign with my celebrity friends gross and desperate, no matter who did it. If Danielle Deadwyler was pulling that shit in order to get nominated. I'd actively be rooting against her to get nominated. I'd root against anyone who did that. Those are just my particular principles. Anyone else is free to think how they wish, and I can only speak for myself. But under no circumstances would I ever praise the "creativity" of that stunt. Risbourough is just the one desperate enough to actually do it, so she'll have to take the flack. I guess I just can't wrap my head around why it's okay for studios to whore out for awards, building and bankrolling an entire industry around the concept of schmoozing and campaigning (sometimes viciously so, in the case of the likes of Weinstein and Rudin), but for someone to see an opportunity to try to maximize their chances with the most minimal resources possible is gross and desperate. But I guess that's where we differ. Ultimately, though, Riseborough shouldn't be excoriated for "stealing" Danielle Deadwyler or Viola Davis's spots just because her campaign was successful. No one is owed an Oscar nomination. It's unfortunate that Deadwyler had succeeded with SAG and BAFTA (although she was very likely a jury save) only to miss at the final hurdle, but it shows how in flux everything was outside of the agreed top two, and how critical last-minute momentum truly is in these races. If anything, I would be more interested to know in what was happening in The Fabelmans camp when they saw Williams miss at SAG and BAFTA. There had to be a mad scramble.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Jan 25, 2023 16:19:29 GMT
I 100% guarantee the posters here that think the Risebourough campaign was “gross” don’t have an actual issue with the tactic, just the results. I’ll go further and say some of them would be praising the creativity of it if it was for a non-white actress or even if she got in with Williams and de Armas out. Agreed. 100%. Maybe not for everyone, but for a majority, yes. I don’t browse here that often, but the campaign was actually being praised and encouraged on AW initially. It wasn’t until enough celebrity endorsements happened and the nom started to seem like a legitimate possibility that it all changed.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 16:22:06 GMT
I 100% guarantee the posters here that think the Risebourough campaign was “gross” don’t have an actual issue with the tactic, just the results. I’ll go further and say some of them would be praising the creativity of it if it was for a non-white actress or even if she got in with Williams and de Armas out. Agreed. 100%. Maybe not for everyone, but for a majority, yes. I don’t browse here that often, but the campaign was actually being praised and encouraged on AW initially. It wasn’t until enough celebrity endorsements happened and the nom started to seem like a legitimate possibility that it all changed. People seemed to be loving the meme aspect of it, but didn't realize that meme or not, it was working. Hell, I would argue that the copy/paste aspect of it was a huge part of why that campaign was so effective. It's no different than a hashtag. The little film with a big heart indeed!
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Jan 25, 2023 16:27:17 GMT
Errr...no. I like to think I have little something called integrity. I'd find the whole copy and paste campaign with my celebrity friends gross and desperate, no matter who did it. If Danielle Deadwyler was pulling that shit in order to get nominated. I'd actively be rooting against her to get nominated. I'd root against anyone who did that. Those are just my particular principles. Anyone else is free to think how they wish, and I can only speak for myself. But under no circumstances would I ever praise the "creativity" of that stunt. Risbourough is just the one desperate enough to actually do it, so she'll have to take the flack. I guess I just can't wrap my head around why it's okay for studios to whore out for awards, building and bankrolling an entire industry around the concept of schmoozing and campaigning (sometimes viciously so, in the case of the likes of Weinstein and Rudin), but for someone to see an opportunity to try to maximize their chances with the most minimal resources possible is gross and desperate. But I guess that's where we differ. Ultimately, though, Riseborough shouldn't be excoriated for "stealing" Danielle Deadwyler or Viola Davis's spots just because her campaign was successful. No one is owed an Oscar nomination. It's unfortunate that Deadwyler had succeeded with SAG and BAFTA (although she was very likely a jury save) only to miss at the final hurdle, but it shows how in flux everything was outside of the agreed top two, and how critical last-minute momentum truly is in these races. If anything, I would be more interested to know in what was happening in The Fabelmans camp when they saw Williams miss at SAG and BAFTA. There had to be a mad scramble. I think we’ve just gotten used to, and have accepted that as the way it should be. The fact that there’s much more opposition to this than Harvey Weinstein literally trying to buy awards is proof of that. I’ve caught up with your posts on the subject, and I agree with everything you’ve said here btw!
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 16:33:24 GMT
I guess I just can't wrap my head around why it's okay for studios to whore out for awards, building and bankrolling an entire industry around the concept of schmoozing and campaigning (sometimes viciously so, in the case of the likes of Weinstein and Rudin), but for someone to see an opportunity to try to maximize their chances with the most minimal resources possible is gross and desperate. But I guess that's where we differ. Ultimately, though, Riseborough shouldn't be excoriated for "stealing" Danielle Deadwyler or Viola Davis's spots just because her campaign was successful. No one is owed an Oscar nomination. It's unfortunate that Deadwyler had succeeded with SAG and BAFTA (although she was very likely a jury save) only to miss at the final hurdle, but it shows how in flux everything was outside of the agreed top two, and how critical last-minute momentum truly is in these races. If anything, I would be more interested to know in what was happening in The Fabelmans camp when they saw Williams miss at SAG and BAFTA. There had to be a mad scramble. I think we’ve just gotten used to, and have accepted that as the way it should be. The fact that there’s much more opposition to this than Harvey Weinstein literally trying to buy awards is proof of that. I’ve caught up with your posts on the subject, and I agree with everything you’ve said here btw! Indeed. There seems to be this mentality that an actor shouldn't appear that they want an Oscar, and anything that is to the contrary is to be mocked, ridiculed and seen as cheapening the whole process. Look at how Melissa Leo was treated when she put out that "Consider" ad. She put that out because even though she was the frontrunner to win, she was a character actress of a certain age who historically doesn't get a lot of the career opportunities afforded to the likes of, say, Amy Adams. Even if Leo won the Oscar, it was no guarantee it would be a career boost for her and she put that ad out to promote herself not just for the award, but for future opportunities. How is that a bad thing? Meanwhile, the whole bloody rigmarole of the Academy Awards has been crooked from the start. It's an economy all in itself. And the last few decades especially have been all about playing dirty. We just have been used to it, as you say. But there's no classiness or grace in big studios dumping huge amounts of money into this process. It's all about courting votes. But for someone to try to do it without spending more that the average person's gross yearly income to do so -- that's a bad thing? I mean, if you want to talk about tacky, the Chill Wills ad in 1960 is far worse (hilariously so) than what happened here.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 25, 2023 17:54:52 GMT
I do have to say, for a bunch like us who acknowledge the Oscars are not the be all, end all of film discussion, and that there are worse and more important things in the world to be worry about, we still get weirdly upset when the integrity of a show where people hand other people World’s Best Mom trophies from Walgreens is mildly challenged.
I love the Oscars, I love them for their pomp and circumstance, but let’s not act like they’re the Nobel Prize.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 17:56:39 GMT
I do have to say, for a bunch like us who acknowledge the Oscars are not the be all, end all of film discussion, and that there are worse and more important things in the world to be worry about, we still get weirdly upset when the integrity of a show where people hand other people World’s Best Mom trophies from Walgreens is mildly challenged. I love the Oscars, I love them for their pomp and circumstance, but let’s not act like they’re the Nobel Prize. Ironically, the Nobel committee for their Literature prize has gotten quite a bit of flak the last few years, so they're not invulnerable to criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 25, 2023 18:22:50 GMT
I do have to say, for a bunch like us who acknowledge the Oscars are not the be all, end all of film discussion, and that there are worse and more important things in the world to be worry about, we still get weirdly upset when the integrity of a show where people hand other people World’s Best Mom trophies from Walgreens is mildly challenged. I love the Oscars, I love them for their pomp and circumstance, but let’s not act like they’re the Nobel Prize. Ironically, the Nobel committee for their Literature prize has gotten quite a bit of flak the last few years, so they're not invulnerable to criticism. I had to have a fancy example to compare to. But in the grand scheme of things, I have no issue with the Riseborough nomination. Like has already been said, I don’t see it any differently then studio campaigning to get a nomination. At its core, it’s still about people using their resources, insider status, and schmoozing to get into the category. The big difference is, when a studio tries to amp up and take advantage of weaknesses in a field, it’s just viewed as “that’s how the game is played,” because they know how the system works (Weinstein was downright condescending to Kathryn Bigelow while boasting Inglorious Basterds was gonna win Best Picture). The Riseborough boost was just a gambit that paid off, one that could have easily floundered pathetically come nomination morning. But all in all, here’s the issue I’m having with people blasting the grass roots campaign, when studios do this same thing on a regular basis. It’s operating under the assumption that she did it maliciously. That’s a leap, as I imagine it was just an unfortunate side effect she didn’t want, but let’s say she did do it purposely, to take someone of color out of the race. If the system that the Oscars operate under really is so weak, and so splintered that Riseborough can exploit it to her advantage, the problem is not Riseborough.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 25, 2023 18:29:43 GMT
If the system that the Oscars operate under really is so weak, and so splintered that Riseborough can exploit it to her advantage, the problem is not Riseborough.And this is a major crux of my argument. The system can and should allow for something like this to happen. It's just that no one has really pulled it off the way Riseborough did because the advent of dozens of precursors has made it so that it's a gambit, especially if you don't have studio backing or deep pockets.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Jan 25, 2023 19:48:04 GMT
My thoughts on the "controversy". Andrea Risbourough's "campaign" was gross and completely distorts any "fair play" element. Getting 100 + of the richest and most recognisable stars on the planet to cut and paste a message to get her nominated at the expense of others (in this case, women of color) was not grass roots campaigning. It's privilege. In this case it's white privilege, because it was mostly white stars pushing a white actress with zero traction in the race, to oust black actresses who were hitting the traditional precursors. Frances Fisher' s social media posts were particularly awful, calling Deadwyler and Davis "locks", therefore encouraging voters not to vote for them on the assumption that they were "safe". Risbourough's film was a flop and got zero traction. Maybe that was unfair and a shame, but rigging the game the way she and her collaborators did to advantage themselves over black actresses who played the game according to the rules always set out was awful. It gets worse the more I think about it. I haven't even seen To Leslie. It may be a nomination worthy performance. But frankly, that's irrelevant. The way the nomination was achieved and whom it was done at the expense of will always severely taint the achievement. Why would anyone want to get recognised this way Hopefully some sort of ruling is instituted to prevent "grass roots" ( ) campaigns of this kind being able to take place again. It was too extreme and casts a cloud over the whole thing. As if it wasn't already obvious with stabcaesar that being against Riseborough's BEAUTIFUL and EXCITING grass-roots was the official Dumb Cunt opinion, here comes the Emperor of Dumb Cuntville himself, CruddyPuppy, to co-sign this. Did you ever stop and think that the reason the vast majority of people disagree with your opinions on anything like 95% of the time is because you're just a Dumb Cunt and they're SMARTER than you?? Cuz it's occurred to anyone on this board who's had to put up with your insipid laughably smug opinions for years. You are...a lower being.
|
|