|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 22, 2017 2:19:57 GMT
www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/oscar-voter-reveals-her-brutally-honest-ballot-meryl-streep-like-a-clown-la-la-land-not-memora/item/best-picture-brutally-honest-ballot-977467Some interesting points: Lead Actress: " I liked none of them. I thought Meryl [Streep in Florence Foster Jenkins] played it like a clown — she's cute and adorable, but this woman didn't matter to me in the end — but people are gaga over Meryl, and I think she solidified her nomination when she gave that speech at the Golden Globes. I don't think she would have gotten nominated without it. I hated Jackie so much — it was just shallow crap — so no Natalie Portman. [Elle's] Isabelle Huppert is an ice-cold actress, and I eliminated her because when you get attacked, beaten and raped, you're not the same person afterward, but she was, and I wanted to slap her to try to get a reaction out of her. The girl in La La Land [Emma Stone] is going to win because she's adorable and everybody loves her, but I don't think she was as wonderful as people are saying. That leaves me with Ruth Negga for Loving, who was fairly one-note, but engaging enough." My vote Ruth Negga (Loving) supporting actress: I immediately ruled out [Fences'] Viola Davis — don't get me wrong, I love her and I think she's wonderful, but that's my protest vote. She should have been in the lead actress category, and when the studios put these actresses who are clearly the lead in the supporting category — like they did with [The Danish Girl's] Alicia Vikander last year, even though she had more lines than the guy [Eddie Redmayne] — that really irks me. Because it prevents real supporting actresses, like the waitress in Hell or High Water [Margaret Bowman], from getting nominated. Viola will probably win, but she belonged in the leading lady category.... 3rd Voterwww.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/brutally-honest-ballot-2-la-la-land-felt-a-little-light-barry-jenkins-is-a-poet-978273/item/best-picture-brutally-honest-ballot-2-978275?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral4th Voter:[/b
www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/oscars-2017-brutally-honest-ballot-4-978499/item/best-live-action-short-brutally-honest-ballot-4-978620
5th voter:
www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/brutally-honest-ballot-5-loved-emma-stone-ryan-gosling-together-gimme-a-break-arrival-978500/item/best-picture-brutally-honest-ballot-5-978501
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 22, 2017 2:33:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phenix714 on Feb 22, 2017 2:36:06 GMT
Wow what a waste of a ballot. If you don't even like movies then why work in the movie industry ?
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Feb 22, 2017 2:45:56 GMT
99% of the time, "brutally honest" is synonymous with "loudmouth moron".
|
|
|
Post by pendragon on Feb 22, 2017 2:51:03 GMT
Sounds like she has a personal vendetta against Arrival. Did someone involved with the film break up with her or something?
|
|
matheusf
Junior Member
Posts: 306
Likes: 155
|
Post by matheusf on Feb 22, 2017 3:20:40 GMT
This kind of closed mind is what makes the Oscars have such bland winners every time.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Feb 22, 2017 3:38:53 GMT
You know reading the reasoning on these "brutally honest" ballots every year I think helps to explain why so many movies are terrible.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Feb 22, 2017 3:47:17 GMT
Sounds like she has a personal vendetta against Arrival. Did someone involved with the film break up with her or something? Yeah, she doesn't even bother explaining why. It's just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Feb 22, 2017 3:52:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phenix714 on Feb 22, 2017 3:53:06 GMT
Interesting that just based on those revealed ballots Gosling and Mortensen come out on top. Could this mean something for the actual results ?
Most voters seem to talk about Affleck as the one who will win, because "people say so", but almost no one seems to have actually voted for him.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Feb 22, 2017 4:06:08 GMT
Interesting that just based on those revealed ballots Gosling and Mortensen come out on top. Could this mean something for the actual results ? Most voters seem to talk about Affleck as the one who will win, because "people say so", but almost no one seems to have actually voted for him. Nah, the size sample is always too small, so every year people think there's going to be a surprise and it never really happens.
|
|
|
Post by phenix714 on Feb 22, 2017 4:11:03 GMT
It's very small but still, Affleck and Denzel getting the support of only 2 out of the 8 ballots we've seen, when they are supposed to largely dwarf the competition, could indicate something we were not aware of.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Feb 22, 2017 4:13:56 GMT
It's very small but still, Affleck and Denzel getting the support of only 2 out of the 8 ballots we've seen, when they are supposed to largely dwarf the competition, could indicate something we were not aware of. You're getting ahead of yourself if you think that 8 ballots out of over 6,000 are significant. I know you want Gosling to win, but these "brutally honest" ballots will not in themselves make it so.
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 22, 2017 4:14:58 GMT
It's very small but still, Affleck and Denzel getting the support of only 2 out of the 8 ballots we've seen, when they are supposed to largely dwarf the competition, could indicate something we were not aware of. In 2014, Felicia Johnson had more votes in actress in these secret ballots, Moore still won. Though one could argue she was runner-up considering she was the only contender in a picture nominee.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Feb 22, 2017 4:37:30 GMT
I'm scared that Gosling seems to have as much support as he does from the leaked ballots.
|
|
|
Post by cornnetto on Feb 22, 2017 4:47:34 GMT
A low number of ballot would be significant (say 25-30) with someone getting a lot of vote if they were random voters, but they are a very special category of voters those who talk to the press about who they vote (you can be pretty sure it is not someone like Spielberg) in something call brutally honest ballot, that seem to attract people that love to bitch.
Only 8 coupled with a non-random sample sound just too low to me, only something getting on the ballot at least 5 or more time on 8 could show a trend.
|
|
|
Post by phenix714 on Feb 22, 2017 4:48:22 GMT
Yeah I think Jones or Pike were runner ups, with a substantive amount of votes. So this was not surprising. This is a very different situation from this year, where Gosling is expected to get 10% of the votes at most, and Mortensen much less even. Those ballots show that they may actually have some support, even if that hardly means they become likely to win.
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 22, 2017 7:39:06 GMT
Mark Harris@markharrisNYC In the super-unscientific survey of Oscar voters I talked to, Viggo Mortensen won Best Actor. All other results what you'd expect. >
|
|
|
Post by dmitriyuriev on Feb 22, 2017 7:41:17 GMT
Yeah I think Jones or Pike were runner ups, with a substantive amount of votes. So this was not surprising. This is a very different situation from this year, where Gosling is expected to get 10% of the votes at most, and Mortensen much less even. Those ballots show that they may actually have some support, even if that hardly means they become likely to win. Gosling is filler, he's a coattail of Emma and the film. He was lucky the year was weak otherwise he would not have made the cut.
|
|
|
Post by mizzaphoenix on Feb 22, 2017 8:42:38 GMT
[/quote]Gosling is filler, he's a coattail of Emma and the film. He was lucky the year was weak otherwise he would not have made the cut.[/quote]
It's wasn't a weak year, there were loads of strong performances this year, but they were from films that the Academy ignored for the most part because they are a predictable bunch.
|
|
|
Post by levpoldkahnt on Feb 22, 2017 10:13:41 GMT
My god, they both sound so ignorant. No wonder that the "safe bets" usually win.
And the reasons for not voting for them..
"I didnt like the movie so the actress is out" "When youre raped you dont act like that" "The kid was annoying so I didnt vote for that movie"
|
|
|
Post by unfunnyhamster on Feb 22, 2017 10:41:06 GMT
Yeah I think Jones or Pike were runner ups, with a substantive amount of votes. So this was not surprising. This is a very different situation from this year, where Gosling is expected to get 10% of the votes at most, and Mortensen much less even. Those ballots show that they may actually have some support, even if that hardly means they become likely to win. Gosling is filler, he's a coattail of Emma and the film. He was lucky the year was weak otherwise he would not have made the cut. Girl, you go on and on about Gosling being a coattail(which is probs true) then you bring up another awfully obvious coattail Felicia as Moore's runner up...
|
|
|
Post by phenix714 on Feb 22, 2017 10:51:12 GMT
Gosling has just as much screentime as Stone, and his character is probably more representative of the movie's themes. Not sure why some are acting like he's playing second fiddle.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Feb 22, 2017 16:16:24 GMT
My god, they both sound so ignorant. No wonder that the "safe bets" usually win. And the reasons for not voting for them.. "I didnt like the movie so the actress is out" "When youre raped you dont act like that" "The kid was annoying so I didnt vote for that movie" pretty sure we do the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Feb 22, 2017 17:40:14 GMT
Gosling is filler, he's a coattail of Emma and the film. He was lucky the year was weak otherwise he would not have made the cut. Girl, you go on and on about Gosling being a coattail(which is probs true) then you bring up another awfully obvious coattail Felicia as Moore's runner up... lol I Dmitri has certainly been weird with the whole Gosling thing all season, but wouldn't you agree that supportive suffering wives fair much better than men in musicals at the Oscars? I don't think Felicity Jones being second is that far off the mark.
|
|