-
-
This isn’t gonna be a thing. She’ll keep her nod.
ReplyCopy URLFYC:
The HBO darlings everywhere (The Last of Us, Succession, The White Lotus, Perry Mason, White House Plumbers, Love & Death);
The Apple gang (Bad Sisters, Slow Horses, Shrinking, Ted Lasso, Black Bird);
Poker Face, The Great, The Bear, Evil (especially Katja Herbers) and The Good Fight.Please! These gays, they're trying to murder me!
My guess is they won’t find anything. I have so many miex feelings on this not because of Andrea or how she got in, but because of who she got in over and why this tatic couldn’t have been used in the past for Ann Dowd, Ruth Negga, Alfre Woodard, Regina Hall and others.
If that unfunded actors campaign “violated” the rules then why didn’t you look into those tens and tens Weinstein nominations? How is hosting screenings & telling your friends to watch the film any different from studios hosting events and sending FYC packages?
The hypocrisy….
ReplyCopy URLWhether the nomination is rescinded or not, it’s already tainted. Andrea’s ppl really let their thirst overshadow what could’ve been a momentous moment for an otherwise overlooked actress. Had the onslaught of social media posts occurred earlier, instead of the week Oscar voting began, it might’ve not looked so obvious & desperate. And again…what is the deal with Academy members & WOC (specifically Black women) in Lead actress? That’s a much bigger conversation some need to have.
ReplyCopy URLPersonally I don’t think the push for Andrea Riseborough was wrong. It’s utter hypocrisy to condemn her friends for encouraging other voters to see her work when all these celebrities have spent months doing the same thing at all these parties and have the same intention with the multi-million dollar marketing content the studios buy them.
ReplyCopy URL
Of course, all of this could have been done more privately, started earlier, and mentioning other competitors was unnecessary, but in the end everyone plays the same ugly game. Andrea Riseborough gives a great performance, is a great actress and doesn’t deserve to have her reputation destroyed because she prevailed against the big studios. I hope she can keep her nomination.Personally I don’t think the push for Andrea Riseborough was wrong. It’s utter hypocrisy to condemn her friends for encouraging other voters to see her work when all these celebrities have spent months doing the same thing at all these parties and have the same intention with the multi-million dollar marketing content the studios buy them. Of course, all of this could have been done more privately, started earlier, and mentioning other competitors was unnecessary, but in the end everyone plays the same ugly game. Andrea Riseborough gives a great performance, is a great actress and doesn’t deserve to have her reputation destroyed because she prevailed against the big studios. I hope she can keep her nomination.
cancel all campaigning.
😈
ReplyCopy URLcancel all campaigning.
I think it would benefit the industry as a whole if the campaigns actually ended. Netflix is reported to have spent $60 million on the Roma campaign (to seem more reasonable, they said they spent “only” $30 million). The Wall Street Journal said that Netflix spent more than $100 million on The Irishman + Marriage Story campaign in 2019 (again, they tried to dispute that number but didn’t offer any data to deny the information or cite the amount spent). Studios are expected to spend between $5 and $20 million on campaigns, at a minimum. Apple spent more than $10 million (the entire CODA budget) on its campaign last year. Imagine how many cool mid- and small-budget projects would be possible if studios stopped investing that much money in trophies.
ReplyCopy URL
But Hollywood is built on perception, the Oscars are the pinnacle of prestige within the industry and everyone involved engages in campaigning in one way or another because it has a huge impact on any professional’s career, and this type of marketing is in itself a professional branch adjacent and essential to this industry.I think it would benefit the industry as a whole if the campaigns actually ended. Netflix is reported to have spent $60 million on the Roma campaign (to seem more reasonable, they said they spent “only” $30 million). The Wall Street Journal said that Netflix spent more than $100 million on The Irishman + Marriage Story campaign in 2019 (again, they tried to dispute that number but didn’t offer any data to deny the information or cite the amount spent). Studios are expected to spend between $5 and $20 million on campaigns, at a minimum. Apple spent more than $10 million (the entire CODA budget) on its campaign last year. Imagine how many cool mid- and small-budget projects would be possible if studios stopped investing that much money in trophies. But Hollywood is built on perception, the Oscars are the pinnacle of prestige within the industry and everyone involved engages in campaigning in one way or another because it has a huge impact on any professional’s career, and this type of marketing is in itself a professional branch adjacent and essential to this industry.
I concur. Moreover, I feel like the nominations wouldn’t be *that* different if campaigning wasn’t a thing and everything just happened organically.
I mean look at the BP nominees. Top Gun and Avatar were the biggest movies of the year, Elvis is a biopic about Elvis, Triangle of Sadness won the Palme d’Or, The Fabelmans and The Banshees of Inisherin were always gonna be watched because of their directors, TAR and Women Talking were highly anticipated because of their directors’ long hiatuses, and AQOTWF and EEAAO became buzzy naturally.
All the campaigning did was serve to suppress passion for competing films from the studios (like The Batman and Glass Onion and Nope) and waste money that, as you said, could have been spent on making other films.
ReplyCopy URLOnce there was only Dark. If you ask me, the Light's winning.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
