Home Forums Movies Oscar Winners Who Won Because of Weinstein

Oscar Winners Who Won Because of Weinstein

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 12 posts - 46 through 57 (of 57 total)
Created
1 year ago
Last Reply
1 year ago
56
( +1 hidden )
replies
5134
views
23
users
M: The Original
9
Elazul
4
Honey
4
  • SHT L
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 7th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202574960

    We have to accept that Harvey Weinstein really WAS that powerful during Oscar campaigns. This is not meant to undermine or underrate the performances and films that he helped but we all know winning the Oscar is much more than just a bunch of insiders voting for their favorite film. A lot of it really is publicity, what gets seen, and how one can best attack the competition. I mean obviously a lot of that wouldn’t work if people didn’t want to support the film or buy into the narratives that hurt the competing movies, but campaigning and politicking does so much for a movie’s Oscar chances. Plus, I bet so many of the Oscar voters don’t even see most of the movies and just vote on buzz and what they see being advertised right in front of them and what they think the movie is about. Probably judged a movie’s merits based on trailers they saw on YouTube, photo stills, and award show clips from the Golden Globes and SAG.

    ReplyCopy URL
    BenitoDelicias
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202575099

    Weren’t Sorvino and Paltrow young enough, hot enough, blond enough, new enough and Hollywood royalty to win easily without Harvey’s influence? You people must have Paltrow’s win confused with Shakespeare’s BP win. Those are two different things, only one of those wouldn’t have happened without Harvey.

    I think the thread should be about people who really, really won because of Harvey’s influence. Like shifting the race for Winslet to his own film and working hard to erase the other.

    Or Chocolat and Binoche, maybe Cider House Rules, entering the race the way they did.

    Things like that. Not Silver Linings Playbook, for example, which critics and voters would’ve loved without his influence.

    ReplyCopy URL
    M: The Original
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 5th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202575107

    Weren’t Sorvino and Paltrow young enough, hot enough, blond enough, new enough and Hollywood royalty to win easily without Harvey’s influence? You people must have Paltrow’s win confused with Shakespeare’s BP win. Those are two different things, only one of those wouldn’t have happened without Harvey.

    I think the thread should be about people who really, really won because of Harvey’s influence. Like shifting the race for Winslet to his own film and working hard to erase the other.

    Or Chocolat and Binoche, maybe Cider House Rules, entering the race the way they did.

    Things like that. Not Silver Linings Playbook, for example, which critics and voters would’ve loved without his influence.

    Sorvino was no one before her win and flamed out rather quickly after.

    Kathy Bates for Best Supporting Actress (Richard Jewell)

    ReplyCopy URL
    RobertPius
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 22nd, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202575113

    I remember Shakespeare in Love getting so much flack for their advertising but Warren Beatty somehow counted up that Saving Private Ryan had actually done more advertising than Shakespeare in Love.

    Paltrow’s win wasn’t really that outlandish at the time. She had a big run in the early 90s. Flesh and Bone nearly got her a supporting actress nomination and then she had a bunch of other acclaimed performances. Plus Cate Blanchett was pretty much unknown (one other film on her resume at that time I think)so it wasn’t like she had any “due” factor.

    Plus I remember the analysis at the time saying they think Shakespeare in Love did really well with the actor’s branch since at it’s heart it is about someone wanting to be an actor so actors could relate to that.

    ReplyCopy URL
    BenitoDelicias
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202575175

    Weren’t Sorvino and Paltrow young enough, hot enough, blond enough, new enough and Hollywood royalty to win easily without Harvey’s influence? You people must have Paltrow’s win confused with Shakespeare’s BP win. Those are two different things, only one of those wouldn’t have happened without Harvey.

    I think the thread should be about people who really, really won because of Harvey’s influence. Like shifting the race for Winslet to his own film and working hard to erase the other.

    Or Chocolat and Binoche, maybe Cider House Rules, entering the race the way they did.

    Things like that. Not Silver Linings Playbook, for example, which critics and voters would’ve loved without his influence.

    Sorvino was no one before her win and flamed out rather quickly after.

    Neither of those things matter. Specially what she did after. I don’t remember her part, but she was at least in Quiz Show, a BP nominee the year before. Even if it was a tiny part, plenty of unknowns have won before. And will win again.

    ReplyCopy URL
    RobertPius
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 22nd, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202575283

    Sorvino also was helped to a win because Oliver Stone wouldn’t let screeners to be sent out for Nixon. (this was back when screeners were kind of new.)

    I remember British actors complaining that they didn’t get screeners and the film wasn’t playing in the UK so Joan Allen (who I think should have won) wasn’t able to even be seen by a huge chunk of the academy.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Elazul
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 2nd, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202575686

    Plus I remember the analysis at the time saying they think Shakespeare in Love did really well with the actor’s branch since at it’s heart it is about someone wanting to be an actor so actors could relate to that.

    Not long before his downfall, Weinstein talked about this over at Deadline. I think the “dressed up as a boy” theme also helped her win.

    ReplyCopy URL
    SHT L
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 7th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202575699

    Plus, it had been a while since a romantic comedy won Best Picture. The 90s were really serious and by 1998 maybe people found SIP to be a nice change of pace at the time.

    ReplyCopy URL
    JROCK1772
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 13th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202575841

    I remember British actors complaining that they didn’t get screeners and the film wasn’t playing in the UK so Joan Allen (who I think should have won) wasn’t able to even be seen by a huge chunk of the academy.

    Allen honestly should have 2 Oscars at this point. This was handily a better performance and the fact that a large portion of voter did not even see it is disappointing.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Eddy Q
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202578268

    Here’s a complete list of actors and actresses who won an Oscar for starring in a film directly produced either by the Weinstein Company or by Miramax while Weinstein was in charge.

    Unpopular opinion: all of these would’ve won regardless of Weinstein.

    thats literally impossible, considering none of those movies would’ve been made and even if another studio produced the same films, it could’ve been a completely diff team.

    Literally yes, but I’m talking in context of a hypothetical alternate reality where the film itself is exactly the same but with a different studio and/or distributor.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Eddy Q
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202578278

    Sorvino? Go!

    She plays a hooker and is in a Woody Allen film. Supporting Actress catnip. And this was an era where comedic performances were doing particularly well in this category (Goldberg, Ruehl, Tomei). Kate Winslet didn’t have the advantage of the SAG-BAFTA double as back then BAFTA was after the Oscars; with today’s calender she would’ve had a greater chance. Also what Robert said about Joan Allen and Nixon.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Eddy Q
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202578291

    Gwyneth Paltrow

    This is easy. She was the biggest star at the time of all the nominees (except Meryl Streep who obviously wasn’t winning this year). She was the star of one of two Best Picture frontrunners, and as it turns out, the eventual BP winner. She had definite “it-girl” status, similar to Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone at the time of their recent wins. And her role was juicy enough (playing an actor, dressing as a boy, reciting Shakespeare, lots of weeping) to justify sweeping her along with the rest of the film’s wins. Cate Blanchett, Paltrow’s only serious competition in terms of likelihood to win, was indeed less well known at the time as others have pointed out, but that aside I wouldn’t say she gives a completely undeniable performance in an Oscar-baiting sense, despite playing a historical figure. On a superficial level, Paltrow’s performance is in some ways more transformative than Blanchett’s, except for the very end of the latter. In fact, the most physically challenging and transformative performance of the nominees that year was Emily Watson’s Jacqueline du Pré, which is the sort of work that wins Oscars if the film it’s in has more support than Hilary and Jackie did.

    It’s pretty clear to me that Paltrow’s performance, as it stands, would’ve won with the backing of any other major studio.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 12 posts - 46 through 57 (of 57 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
RobertPius - Nov 13, 2019
Movies
Alex Meyer - Nov 12, 2019
Movies
Qoslca - Nov 12, 2019
Movies