|
Post by MagdaFR on Dec 7, 2018 14:38:50 GMT
I think you have to go to parties, send presents, at least with the GG.
I have to say that this year I tried to watch all the films and miniseries that were talked for thee Emmys and couldh't. There are so many!
How are the voters going to watch all the drama, comedies, and other shows which are in the conversation?
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Dec 7, 2018 15:15:44 GMT
From Wikipedia:
I looked up what “plurality voting” means, and it just means that voters can vote for only one nominee, and whichever ever gets the most votes wins .
I would think that the members of the HFPA have already watched all the nominees - that’s their job! If not, they need to get busy!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 7, 2018 17:48:57 GMT
Even TV critics are admitting that they don't watch everything. It's impossible because series aren't just two hours long! And yes, it's a problem!
GG voters supposedly are journalists (and I said supposedly because this has been questioned in the past) so they indeed should have seen the movies and series but they also have fame of being easy to buy. They are just a few individuals so studios can easily find them and sent them expensive gifts. Historically they have bad reputation! Probably the thing that keeps them alive is that they are also famous for having fun ceremonies loved by big stars (the Oscars are considered much more formal and boring)
Oscar voters are very numerous so it's impossible not just to buy them but making them to watch the films! (This year happened something similar with the Emmys because they stopped voting by committees and now every member is voting with a lot of them publicly saying they didn't watched everything and were voting for what they actually saw or just liked the people behind the series). That's why studios worry more about sending DVDs instead of gifts! Those studios that doesn't care just don't sent them (Example, Selma which was widely reported that it was neglected by its own studio until the Internet decided that the racist was the Academy and attacked the black woman it had as president instead the big Hollywood studio that distributed the movie). I remember a Sony leak about this: the honchos deciding it wasn't financially productive to do an Oscar campaign for a film.
So, yes, they don't necessarily watch them!
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Dec 7, 2018 20:54:36 GMT
He won’t win even though he should. I don’t know why he is so unlucky with winning awards but I suspect it’s partly because people just expect him to be excellent. They tend to give awards to people whose performance has surprised them by its quality. Not sure I’ve explained that very well but maybe you know what I mean. He is not only outstanding in PM, but the whole series is exceptional. It is deeply unfair to give the nomination only to him, as if he were just an excellent actor in an average series. (Similarly, it was nothing short of offensive to give Bafta nomination only to Rebecca Hall for "Parade's End"). I've lost hope: if he cannot win any significant award for a masterpiece such as PM, he will never win anything.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 7, 2018 22:00:16 GMT
He won’t win even though he should. I don’t know why he is so unlucky with winning awards but I suspect it’s partly because people just expect him to be excellent. They tend to give awards to people whose performance has surprised them by its quality. Not sure I’ve explained that very well but maybe you know what I mean. He is not only outstanding in PM, but the whole series is exceptional. It is deeply unfair to give the nomination only to him, as if he were just an excellent actor in an average series. (Similarly, it was nothing short of offensive to give Bafta nomination only to Rebecca Hall for "Parade's End"). I've lost hope: if he cannot win any significant award for a masterpiece such as PM, he will never win anything. Al Pacino didn't won an Oscar for The Godfather 1&2 nor Serpico nor Dog Day Afternoon, he won for Scent of a Woman; Scorsese finally won for The Departed! So yes, he can win awards for mediocre movies (I actually liked The Departed but I agreed that it's not Taxi Driver or Goodfellas). Awards, especially in America, are more about the "right narrative" and he is probably still too young, succesful and popular for awards. That and yes, he hasn't have luck with them yet.
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Dec 7, 2018 23:51:49 GMT
Awards, especially in America, are more about the "right narrative" and he is probably still too young, succesful and popular for awards. That and yes, he hasn't have luck with them yet. Well, "too young" is an exaggeration, . He is 42! And you are right, there have been plenty of nominations & wins for roles in average or mediocre films. B. has been nominated for Bafta for his "Small Island" role, which was an interesting topic, but certainly not a good miniseries. But I would like him to win for a splendid role in a splendid film, not for a random role in a random film!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Dec 8, 2018 0:19:26 GMT
I feel the same way! And I want everything perfect - I want him to be at the awards ceremony with Sophie and his parents, and I want his acceptance speech to be even longer and more rambling than usual!
Is that too much to ask? Ha!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Dec 8, 2018 0:49:18 GMT
Absolutely YES! to your comment about AP not getting the Oscar for something like Serpico or (especially) Dog Day Afternoon and receiving it for a wholly inferior performance in Scent of a Woman.
All this award talk injustices brings to mind, what I think is even more of an injustice, because Peter O'Toole had to settle for an consolation honourary Oscar instead of being deservedly chosen for an award for a Best Actor out of his EIGHT nominations.
To me, O'Toole's performance in Lawrence of Arabia was head and shoulders above every one of the competition at the 1963 Oscar's, including a very good Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird, who won the prize (and Peck himself suffered a loss for his magnificently nuanced performance of General Savage in 12 O'Clock High in 1949). It still grinds me he didn't get the Oscar for his Lawrence!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Dec 8, 2018 1:06:38 GMT
Sgev said: "Awards, especially in America, are more about the "right narrative" and he is probably still too young, succesful and popular for awards."
He just now is coming up to the average age of Oscar winners for Best Actor. It's 44 years of age.
Last year's Oscar, the average age of the 4 major acting award winners was over 56 years of age.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Dec 8, 2018 2:01:58 GMT
I think he seems young because he has only been really widely known for about 10 years. Let’s compare him to Keira Knightley, who is nearly ten years younger than Benedict but did Bend it Like Beckham (where I first saw her) in 2002 - 16 years ago! She’s had a much longer career than he has had, so he seems younger in terms of acting career.
|
|