Home Forums Movies Why no category confusion last year for Felicity Jones (‘Theory of Everything’)?

Why no category confusion last year for Felicity Jones (‘Theory of Everything’)?

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 61 total)
Created
4 years ago
Last Reply
4 years ago
60
replies
9512
views
25
users
Philip
18
Joe Burns
7
Freddy Almonte
4
  • Lord Freddy Blackfyre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204959

    Neither Hopkins or Kidman were supporting in their films. Limited time is not prove of a character being supporting, the importance of the character to the story is what made them lead or supporting.

    The Oscar needs to get rid of the preferential ballot so it can name a deserving movie as Best Picture again.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204960

    Neither Hopkins or Kidman were supporting in their films. Limited time is not prove of a character being supporting, the importance of the character to the story is what made them lead or supporting.

    With that way of thinking most supporting nominees and winners should be in lead then.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Lord Freddy Blackfyre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204961

    Nope. The whole story of The Silence of the Lambs revolves around the actions and help of Hannibal Lecter to locate the missing girl without Hannibal Lecter there is not Silence of the Lambs. In the case of The Hours the story is about the creation of one book and the effect that that book has over the rest of the characters, Virginia Wolf conduct the action and we see it from the very first moments in the excellent edited scene of the brushing hair until the dead of the poet. Without Virginia Wolf there’s not Mrs. Dalloway and certainly there’s not The Hours.

    The Oscar needs to get rid of the preferential ballot so it can name a deserving movie as Best Picture again.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204962

    Nope. The whole story of The Silence of the Lambs revolves around the actions and help of Hannibal Lecter to locate the missing girl without Hannibal Lecter there is not Silence of the Lambs. In the case of The Hours the story is about the creation of one book and the effect that that book has over the rest of the characters, Virginia Wolf conduct the action and we see it from the very first moments in the excellent edited scene of the brushing hair until the dead of the poet. Without Virginia Wolf there’s not Mrs. Dalloway and certainly there’s not The Hours.

    The same thing could be said about Winslet, Stewart, Leigh this year alone. Buffalo Bull still exists in Silence of the Lambs, he is the case that the whole movie us based around. Lecter helps of course, but you still have a movie if his character is removed.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Lord Freddy Blackfyre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204963

    Not the same movie. Let’s try again.

    The Last King of Scotland

    Let’s imagen that instead of some part of Africa this story happen in the Dominican Republic between the 1930’s and 1960 during the dictatorship of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo a young foreign doctor come and gain the trust of the ruler…it is stil the same story…Now imagen that instead of a young doctor is an old profesor that come to help the ruler and gain his trust…You have a whole different story…the picture is not longer the same.

    Shine

    In this movie the centar character is performed by three different actors, Geoffrey Rush has less screentime than Noah Taylor (who in my opinion gave the best performance in that film). Armin Mueller Star has the most screentime, he is lie in 3/4 part of the film but that doesn’t make him the lead.

    The Oscar needs to get rid of the preferential ballot so it can name a deserving movie as Best Picture again.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Joe Burns
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 26th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204964

    Let’s take a look back from the past 15 years in terms of winners who could be considered leadiing in the Supporting Actress category.  

    2000:  Marcia Gay Harden is clearly  a co-lead in this film. A Best Actress  nomination would be justified for her.  Same with Kate Hudson. The rest are clearly supporting. 

    2001:   Connely is in the same position as Marcia.  The rest of these nominees are definitely supporting, since although Winslet is the female lead of her story in Iris, the film focuses so exclusively on Dench that it makes her supporting. 

    2002: A lot of people like to say Zeta-Jones is clear category fraud, but I disagree. She doesn’t lead the film anywhere and even though her character is important, the film focuses on so much on  Roxie  that it really makes her the only lead in the film. In the stage version, Velma is a co-lead for sure. But in the film, no. Moore is leading to me because all  3 women in the hours can be considered the leads of their own stories.  Bates and Latifah are clearly supporting. I haven’t seen Adaptation in quite a while, but I remember her in being in a lot of it as well as being an important character in the story so a co-lead position could be made.  Tell me if you disagree. 

    2003:  This is a unique year so far given all 5 nominees can be considered supporting without any clear examples of category fraud.  The only one that could be considered a co-lead would be Patricia Clarkson since the film goes back and forth between her and her family and April so one could argue she is leading. Supporting is fitting for her though.

    2004:  Blanchett is definitely supporting.  Madsen is the more important female character, but the film is an ensemble film and both Church and Giamitti lead the film, not Madsen. I haven’t seen the entireity of Closer, so I’m not sure about Portman’s importance since all 4 characters are important to the film, but she seemed to be more important then Roberts from what I saw.  Haven’t seen the others, but from what I’ve heard, both Linney and Okonedo have smaller roles so on paper, supporting seems like a good fit. I could clearly be wrong though. 
    2005:  Since the  entire film revolves around Weisz’s character, Weisz could definitely be considered a lead. All the rest are clearly supporting. 

    2006:  Hudson and Blanchett are obviously co-leads, although Blanchett’s category placement doesn’t anger me as much as others since it is Barbara’s story. Kikuchi and Barazza are the leads of their own stories similiar to the women in the hours, so leading nominations aren’t entirely out of the question. Babel is an ensemble film though, so supporting nominations are fine for them. Breslin is supporting. 

    2007:  Saoirise Ronan leads the entire first half of Atonement, not Keira Knightley, so a leading nomination is not unjustified. The rest are supporting.

    2008:  All of these contenders are supporting. 

    2009:  Farmiga is definitely supporting as well as Cruz. An arguement for Kendrick as a co-lead is plausible since the film is largely about her relationship with Clooney, but I don’t mind the supporting nomination. Monique is supporting and so is Gylenhal.

    2010:  A big category fraud here with Steinfeld being put in supporting.  I haven’t seen Weaver, but the rest are supporting. 

    2011:  Spencer is a co-lead and Berence Bejo is LEADING. Her supporting nomination is ridiculous.  Chastain is supporting.  Have not seen Albert Nobbs. From what I’ve seen of Bridesmaids, it  is an ensemble film with Kristen Wiggs as the lead, so I think Melissa McCarthy is supporting.

    2012:  Hathaway is supporting as well as Field and Weaver.  I have not seen The Master or The Sessions. But from what I know,  Hunt seems to be a co-lead and Adams is supporting.  

    2013:  Roberts is obviously a co-lead.   Lawrence, Hawkins  and Nyongo are  all supporting. Have not seen Nebraska. 

    2014:  Knightley and Stone are supporting. Streep could be considered a co-lead.  Have not seen Wild or Boyhood, but I know Witherspoon is the central character in Wild and Arquette is in the majority of Boyhood, so supporting for Dern and co-lead for Arquette seems like logical positions.  Tell me if you disagree though. 

    It does clearly seem that  category fraud has long been present with the Oscars in this category and it has gotten out of hand. However, there is strong majority of nominees that can be considered supporting unquestionably.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    Joe Burns
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 26th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204965

    [quote=”Fredd2″]

    Nope. The whole story of The Silence of the Lambs revolves around the actions and help of Hannibal Lecter to locate the missing girl without Hannibal Lecter there is not Silence of the Lambs. In the case of The Hours the story is about the creation of one book and the effect that that book has over the rest of the characters, Virginia Wolf conduct the action and we see it from the very first moments in the excellent edited scene of the brushing hair until the dead of the poet. Without Virginia Wolf there’s not Mrs. Dalloway and certainly there’s not The Hours.

    The same thing could be said about Winslet, Stewart, Leigh this year alone. Buffalo Bull still exists in Silence of the Lambs, he is the case that the whole movie us based around. Lecter helps of course, but you still have a movie if his character is removed.
    [/quote]

    How would Clarice have found him though?  How would her actions have been dictated? It was Lecter’s clues that led her to Bill. In theory, you could make a film without his character, but you could not have the same story without  him.  The title wouldn’t make sense either since Clarice makes this revelation to Lecter. It’s doubtful she would have told anyone else about this since it’s such a personal thing to her and only a physcopath like Lecter and in the stakes of the moment between them could it be revealed from her. Hopkins is definitely leading.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204966

    The only way you can stop fraud is by setting a time limit just like the Emmys have sorta done with their guest categories. It is each person’s perspective about the film. Based on this thread alone there are disagreements.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Joe Burns
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 26th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204967

    But that really wouldn’t be fair because screentime is really not the defining factor, at least not 100% of the time.  I think the importance of the character in regards to the story is more important then screentime specifically if they are leading the story forward.  That would be my point of view on it.  But like you said,  it’s all about perspective.  But I mean can one really say the Academy is thinking this way?  There are so many examples of people who could be considered leads that I mentioned that one has to conclude the Academy just doesn’t care and gives the studios what they want simply because they prefer other performances that are for the most part inarguably lead. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204968

    Or they just follow the placements that they have seen. The academy gives them the choice to put them where ever. If they academy did what the Globes did and make decisions before the ballots, then the only people to blame would be the academy board members and not the voters.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204969

    Why no category confusion last year for Felicity Jones (‘Theory of Everything’)?

    Because that Felicity Jones is an honest woman.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204970

    [quote=”Marcus_Dixon”]Why no category confusion last year for Felicity Jones (‘Theory of Everything’)?Because that Felicity Jones is an honest woman.

    [/quote]

    Let’s be honest, most of the stars don’t have a say in this. Hell Mara knows she is Leading but she doesn’t come out and say a word about it.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Joe Burns
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 26th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204971

    Or they just follow the placements that they have seen. The academy gives them the choice to put them where ever. If they academy did what the Globes did and make decisions before the ballots, then the only people to blame would be the academy board members and not the voters.

     

    That might be a better way of sorting out all of these problems.  If Vikander gets snubbed all together or she gets in and Mara gets snubbed, there could be a large uproar that could generate a change in Academy policy.  The only reason why we don’t have 5 Oscar nominees anymore is because of the anger over The Dark Knight being snubbed 7 years ago, which prompted the Academy to change things in order to please the masses.  What could happen is that they extend the Acting nominees to 10 contenders as well,which I think would please some actors.  

    ReplyCopy URL
    Philip
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 29th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204972

    [quote=”PhilipHopf”]

    Or they just follow the placements that they have seen. The academy gives them the choice to put them where ever. If they academy did what the Globes did and make decisions before the ballots, then the only people to blame would be the academy board members and not the voters.

     

    That might be a better way of sorting out all of these problems.  If Vikander gets snubbed all together or she gets in and Mara gets snubbed, there could be a large uproar that could generate a change in Academy policy.  The only reason why we don’t have 5 Oscar nominees anymore is because of the anger over The Dark Knight being snubbed 7 years ago, which prompted the Academy to change things in order to please the masses.   
    [/quote]

    I don’t agree with that. You named a few that I agree with and disagree with, but that hasn’t made anyone stand up and scream about it. Unless an Academy member is on these boards.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Joe Burns
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 26th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #204973

    I  could see something like it happening if one those scenarios comes true on Oscar nominations morning.  As of now, I’m not saying anyone would care enough to change anything. But something does feel different about this year since not even the Globes could ignore Vikander and Mara’s fraud.  And many are opposed to them being nominated in supporting.  Prior to this season, I can’t recall a season where there was this much opposition to category fraud, hell, I can’t recall ANY  season where there was, even when Winslet won.  Winslet’s leading  placement for The Reader was definitely a surprise. There wasn’t any strong reason why one would think that she wouldn’t get in for both.  And nobody seemed angry about her being placed in supporting .  Something just feels different this year.  

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 61 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Qoslca - Nov 12, 2019
Movies
Movie nerd - Nov 12, 2019
Movies
RobertPius - Nov 11, 2019
Movies