-
-
The Oscars need to have a limit for Oscar campaigning budgets
I actually think this is the core of the issue. Whether you think the tactics for the Riseborough nom are questionable or simply unorthodox, it’s undemocratic for your opportunity to be so limited by potential campaign budget.
I also personally think we need to quit with the theatrical release requirement. Three of the best reviewed films with diverse female leads in 2022 were Kimi, The Fallout and Prey – all of which are ineligible and unsubmitted by virtue of not being submitted and being shunted to the below the line TV movie category. No regular person in the public sees why a tiny subset of people see in a theatre with a white lead is more worthy.
ReplyCopy URLI actually think this is the core of the issue. Whether you think the tactics for the Riseborough nom are questionable or simply unorthodox, it’s undemocratic for your opportunity to be so limited by potential campaign budget. I also personally think we need to quit with the theatrical release requirement. Three of the best reviewed films with diverse female leads in 2022 were Kimi, The Fallout and Prey – all of which are ineligible and unsubmitted by virtue of not being submitted and being shunted to the below the line TV movie category. No regular person in the public sees why a tiny subset of people see in a theatre with a white lead is more worthy.
It’s impossible to quit the theatrical release requirement. Some Oscar voters already tried that and totally failed. See The DGA. All Directors in Hollywood prefer theatrical release over Streaming. It’s just that the whole World changed and Streamers are more successful now. But powerful people like Cameron, Spielberg, Tarantino and Nolan still hate Streaming and Streamers
ReplyCopy URLI don’t hate this nomination or the way it came about. I also recognized the crunchy optics of it which is more of an indictment on awards season in general which smart and irrational people have commented on. I didn’t even realize that the industry finger wagging of this doesn’t have to do with who didn’t get nominated. Of course if they didn’t nominate the melanin poppin women and their films, they sure as hell not going out of their way to do an investigation on their behalf. This is the publicists saying NOT ON MY WATCH with this type of foolishness possibly becoming the norm. If Andrea’s nomination is revoked, it’ll be mess o’clock squared! I fully expect the character actors block that got her the nomination to do write-in votes as protest. And whatever her next project is, she’ll be nominated for it.
ReplyCopy URLHarvey Weinstein was famous for his huge Oscar campaigning budgets. Netflix copied Harvey Weinstein in that aspect. Netflix had a huge campaign for Roma and it was, probably, the most expensive Oscar campaign of all time. The Oscars need to have a limit for Oscar campaigning budgets
Yiu cant simply implement what works in Sports (ditto, F1 and NBA) to this case. Budget cap/Financial fair play works in sports because there are clarities on the Team’s spending.
ReplyCopy URLFYC:
Best Director: Edgar Wright, Guillermo Del Toro, Jane Campion
Best Picture: Nightmare Alley, The Power of the Dog
Best Actress: Kristen Stewart, Thomasin McKenzie, Rooney Mara, Tessa Thompson
Best Actor: Benedict Cumberbatch, Bradley Cooper
Best S. Actress: Cate Blanchett, Diana Rigg, Anya Taylor Joy
Best S. Actor: Kodi Smit McPhee, Willem Dafoe, Richard JenkinsYiu cant simply implement what works in Sports (ditto, F1 and NBA) to this case. Budget cap/Financial fair play works in sports because there are clarities on the Team’s spending.
But The Oscars need that. It’s not fair. Most movies don’t have big budgets for Oscar campaigning. Netflix and APPLE are spending way more money than the rest in their Oscar campaigns. It’s not fair. Where is the limit?
ReplyCopy URLBut The Oscars need that. It’s not fair. Most movies don’t have big budgets for Oscar campaigning. Netflix and APPLE are spending way more money than the rest in their Oscar campaigns. It’s not fair. Where is the limit?
At the very least in 2023, actors should be given some level of digital equity – i.e having to fight for coverage because trades (most run by the same company) and other publications are so driven by clicks. Multiple types of performers are disadvantaged by tht. Even simple things like making it worth THRs while to do roundtables for twenty five contenders, not 5-10, helps someone like Riseborough and shouldn’t be that hard to implement.
ReplyCopy URLtimes when harvey weistein broke rules and nothing happened
After the Oscar nominations were announced, Miramax funded a “Welcome to America” party for John Madden, Shakespeare’s British director; Academy members, including director Sidney Lumet, screenwriter-director Jay Presson Allen, and screenwriter David Newman, attended it. As Finke pointed out, this should’ve been held in violation of a 1997 Academy rule barring studios from hosting events for their nominees to which Academy members are invited. So how did Weinstein get around it? By explaining, “I’m sorry there were three Academy members present, but it was a press event, and you have to have celebrities at a press event to get the press there.”
The Weinstein Company sent a for-your-consideration e-mail to The Hollywood Reporter’s subscribers. It included a quote from critic Thelma Adams: “It’s been TWENTY-NINE YEARS SINCE MERYL STREEP WON AN OSCAR and she certainly deserves to win for her performance in The Iron Lady!” This should’ve been against the rules, because for-your-considerations aren’t allowed to reference past awards.
Weinstein got former Academy president and director of The Sound of Music Robert Wise to write an op-ed praising Scorsese and Gangs of New York. Miramax in turn used that op-ed in ads for the movie with the headline reading, “Two time Academy Award winner Robert Wise declares Scorsese deserves the Oscar for Gangs of New York.” It was later revealed that a Miramax publicist actually wrote it and had the 88-year-old Wise sign it. (This resulted in the Academy banning ads that include quotes from Academy members.)
This Harvey Weinstein character sounds like a real scumb@g 💩🖕🏾…
ReplyCopy URLAn excerpt from Matthew Belloni’s latest article:
“I texted with two reps for actors who posted on social media, and they said the clients were contacted over and over again, with pleas to watch the movie, attend a screening, host a screening, post on social, etc. One said they were invited to McCormack and Morris’s home several times for events/screenings, even though they’ve never met. That happens during Oscar season, but these contacts were relentless, and outside the Academy’s official middleman service. That actor feels a bit embarrassed now, according to the rep, even though they did like Riseborough’s performance and felt justified in voting for her; they just feel manipulated.”
ReplyCopy URLFYC: Danielle Deadwyler, Best Actress in a Leading Role
An excerpt from Matthew Belloni’s latest article: “I texted with two reps for actors who posted on social media, and they said the clients were contacted over and over again, with pleas to watch the movie, attend a screening, host a screening, post on social, etc. One said they were invited to McCormack and Morris’s home several times for events/screenings, even though they’ve never met. That happens during Oscar season, but these contacts were relentless, and outside the Academy’s official middleman service. That actor feels a bit embarrassed now, according to the rep, even though they did like Riseborough’s performance and felt justified in voting for her; they just feel manipulated.”
Mess.
ReplyCopy URL
I say make her keep the nom since (Sorry anyone rooting for her) since she isnt going to win with CB and MY in a tight race. Bafta will decide that one. Also, does anyone else remember when Demián Bichir and Catalina Sandino Moreno were nominated and people were baffled like they are now for Andrea and how both performance ended up becoming two of the ones some people now refer to as “Oh they should have won” now. Hell, I would also use the actresses from ‘Roma’ as an example as well but people didnt seem as confused by those noms since the film was huge on Netflix.
ReplyCopy URL
Edit: I am sure there are more that I’m missing but those come to the top of my head and haven’t seen Andrea’s performance yet but based on the other thread, its gotta be goodI still think she should keep her nod. It would only make things worse.
But everything about this is fishy. Andrea Riseborough may have given an outstanding performance, but no one can tell me that there wasn’t some BS behind her nomination.
You have an actress that is relatively not well known outside of Hollywood (just being honest) in a film that made $30,000, that was not released to a big streaming platform get a last-minute push from actors. An Oscar voter says that others are locked in which they obviously weren’t. Everything about this is very suspicious. People were previously saying how Black women are not pushed, but when they are, people are now “anti-campaign.” The way these White women in Hollywood move is quite telling.
I say, let her keep her nomination, but just know, these White actresses are untrustworthy. Completely.
IDGAF what anyone says.
ReplyCopy URL
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
