Forum Replies Created
March 21, 2015 at 7:15 pm #410232
And I know the public had massively dropped their support for them after Geri left the group, but I think it’s weird how Goodbye and Holler weren’t big hits in most markets. Those are songs begging to be big hits, even if they were coming from the Spice Girls after the popularity decline.March 21, 2015 at 7:10 pm #410231
Tonight I’m Getting Over You would have been a #1 single if people hadn’t already decided that Carly Rae Jepsen should be a one-hit wonder.
I agree XO should’ve been a huge hit and that it feels like one.
I also think it’s weird “I’m a Slave 4 U” didn’t get to #1.March 11, 2015 at 1:09 pm #409425
Yeah, nothing rapey about Uptown Funk.February 21, 2015 at 6:14 pm #409268
Frank Ocean is a previous winner of Urban Contemporary just Rihanna. And just like her, he’s a previous AOTY nominee. If he releases and gets nominated along side of her, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume she automatically wins just because her albums sell. Frank is very respected and if his follow-up lives to expectations he can definitely win this category again.February 21, 2015 at 5:10 pm #179175
Vanessa Redgrave is incredible in The Devils. But then again, she is always great in everything. Some people are just naturally great performers, and she is one of the very few of them. This shouldn’t be questioned.February 21, 2015 at 6:31 am #179158
I’ll never get the automatic hard-on Goldderby gets for some actresses. Sarah Paulson is one of them. She’s a good actress, but the overpraise for every single performance of hers around these parts is a bit too much. Lupita definitely had the better performance.February 21, 2015 at 5:56 am #179193
You don’t need to go back too hard to find a BP winner with just three wins. That’s exactly what the last one was. 12 Years a Slave won BP, Supporting Actress and Adapted Screenplay. It’s completely possible that Birdman wins BP, BD and Cinematography or that Boyhood wins BP, BD and Supporting Actress.February 20, 2015 at 4:08 pm #341904
So if TV is not different from films, why don’t we just eliminate the Emmy’s and combine the Oscars and Emmy’s and have them all compete together?
I can pretty much gurantee you that no one in their right mind would agree to that and would think that is a good idea. TV and films are not the same thing and therefore are not awarded with the same award.
Therefore comparing the two makes no sense. If anything, the Oscars may someday need to consider creating a comedy category, as the biasis nowadays toward comedies and comedic performances is so great they pretty much eliminate the overwhelming majority of anything comedic from serious contention.
At this point we will have to agree to disagreee. Although thankfully I get the feeling the academy is in no rush to eliminate the comedic genre and have everyone compete together.
That argument is not at all getting what I meant. I mean, you do get the idea that the whole point I was making is that simply being from different genres does not mean they don’t require effort from the same aspects, such as directing, writing, ediitng, cinematography, cast, etc., right? Because the point was not that two different formats/mediums of audiovisual fiction (which is what TV and film are, they have the same components used to different ends) should compete against one another, but that simply being from two different genres does not make them different from each other in format/medium (like drama and comedy). Those are two different discussions.
Again, I’ll repeat, it was a different format altogether with single-cams. It is NOT when it comes to single-cam comedies, no matter how funny they may be. They still require to succeed in the same vital aspects of production and general dramatic construction (both Mad Men and Modern Family’s writers use pretty much the same basic screenwritting guidelines, I assure you). When you say that a DP of a hour-lour drama is doing different work than the DP fo a half-hour multi-cam, for example, that’s a lie. It’s not different. The tone might be, but they have to go through the same conceptual and execution process. So no, it doesn’t make sense in terms of logic alone, because in the end they are both audiovisual works of fiction from the same medium. It might make sense in terms of comedies get the respect they need some way as compensation, but in terms of actual reality of production and what the end product is, it does not.February 20, 2015 at 3:33 pm #341899
TV is not different from films. They require camera, a crew, a script, editing, everything just the same. The only major difference was with multicams. Different genres shouldn’t be treated separately. While I’m not fond of the way the Oscars treat comedies, they also don’t give out a message that it’s a lesser genre by having it needing it’s own categories so they wins stuff. If you go through genre distinction too much, you end up having to compensate for everyone. After all, a show like Buffy was very different from a show like The Sopranos which was really different from a show like Gilmore Girls. So what? We are gonna keep separating everything instead of recognizing how the craft is similar and takes effort in the same way? The anti-comedy bias in the industry is soemthing that needs to die, but I don’t think allowing it to exist on it’s own completely different separated world is a way for it to ever be equated to dramas in respect either. I’m actually all for having the distinctions as form of compensation for comedies, but in terms of actual logic of production and craft, it makes no sense to separate the two anymore.February 20, 2015 at 3:11 pm #341894
Pretty sure In Treatment would have made a plea to the Academy to be considered a drama (and it would’ve been accepted). Again, I think people are taking the text too literally. This is distinction so shows like Orange and Shameless have to at least be judged by a panel before being accepted into the comedy categories rather than simply being submitted directly to which genre they prefer. But In Treatment was absolutely a drama with no chance of being thought of as anything else, so I doubt they would’ve had resistance going in. OITNB and Shameless staying in comedy though, it’s not really the same situation, and it’s gonna be itneresting to see if they follow through on keeping those shows away so if it’s just a preventive to avoid more traditionally dramatic serious hour-long shows to take slots away from straight-forward comedies in the future.February 20, 2015 at 2:59 pm #341888
I kinda have to agree, the need for distinction between genres is getting more and more infuriating and it really would make more sense to just combine everything. The reason the difference was in place was because of multi-cams, but those are a dying breed right now.
Why should mad men and modern family be in the same category?
Why should Boyhood and The Grand Budapest Hotel be in the same category? Because they are both fictional works of film, and in the cases you mentioned, they are both fictional works of TV. With single-cams prevailing, it really makes no sense anymore, as they are all just like mini-movies (or shorts) that happen to be of different genres rather than two completely different styles of performance and writing like it was back when multi-cams dominated and were compared to dramas.February 20, 2015 at 2:09 pm #341875
I kinda have to agree, the need for distinction between genres is getting more and more infuriating and it really would make more sense to just combine everything. The reason the difference was in place was because of multi-cams, but those are a dying breed right now.February 20, 2015 at 1:42 pm #341866
[quote=”GoneGuy”]A solution to an hour-long submission in Comedy versus a 30-minute submission: Actors in 30-minute series can submit two episodes. Actors in 60-minute series just submit one episode. Voila.
That would actually be very unfair. A 30-minute performer would have the oppotunity to showcase much more range and two different types of story arc, whereas an hour-long performer would still only have one. That would be a huge disavantage to give someone based solely on screentime (especially when a lot of actors have proven in the past that screentime isn’t that relevant).
You have a good point there, at least when it comes to story arc. But couldn’t you argue that a performer in an hour long comedy has the opportunity to show more range as opposed to a performer in a single 30 min. show?
Not really. Range isn’t something that is determined by screentime, but by arc. So it would be unfair. JLD could submit a laugh riot and a more emotional episode and have an unfair advantage over Schilling working with just a single storyline throughout that don’t explore two wildly different ranges of emotions. Writers don’t write hour-longs thinking they have to give every page of the actor’s playbook. More screentime usually just means the storyline extends longer, not that there’s more range and or that it would be as diverse as a half-hour performer submitting two. That would be one of the most unfair things to ever happen in awards, especially as half-hour performers have shown no problem in beating hour-long ocntenders. Don’t see Jim Parsons crying about a disavantage, for example…February 20, 2015 at 1:32 pm #341859
I have highly doubts about Shameless but I think Oitnb is a comedy for sure. The characters in it too ridicoulous to being considered as being in a strict drama. I mean you can’t take seriously Pennsatucky, Crazy Eyes, Black Cindy, Pornstache, Big Boo etc. as a real prison folks. Every character has own peculiar comedic elements except Piper and maybe Alex. The dramatic season finales doesn’t affect the show’s light tone
Having a few ridiculous characters that don’t get much screen time does not make it a comedy, There are many similar dramas.
Twin Peaks had even more ridiculous characters than OITNB, should that have been nominated in Comedy? No, it should not.