Valonqar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Nova said: Sorry but no. Ruth is very deserving of her nomination. I love Meryl, but her performance was not better than Amy or Ruth's. She got nominated simply because her name is "Meryl Streep." Streep nom is a waste of space as always but she was rock solid going into Oscar noms as far as support goes. especially after that liberal wet dream speech at GGs that cemented her nom (probably the real reason why she made it). Adams snub is definitely a quota crap. I'm sure Nega is great but this is a political snub because Adam's movie's genre made her vulnerable to a robbery by an "important" narrative. But yes, in an ideal scenario, Nega would have pushed out Streep. @Cmasterclay I'm openly biased. I'm sick of sci fi always getting a shaft in some category to accommodate "important" crap. Edited January 24, 2017 by Valonqar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Valonqar said: Streep nom is a waste of space as always but she was rock solid going into Oscar noms as far as support goes. especially after that liberal wet dream speech at GGs that cemented her nom (probably the real reason why she made it). Adams snub is definitely a quota crap. I'm sure Nega is great but this is a political snub because Adam's movie's genre made her vulnerable to a robbery by an "important" narrative. But yes, in an ideal scenario, Nega would have pushed out Streep. The point is that BOTH Nega and Adams are worthy of getting nominations, whereas Meryl got nominated simply because she is Meryl. It has nothing to do with "quotas" or whatever youre talking. Ruth Nega was brilliant as was Amy Adams. I cant say the same about Meryl in Florence Foster Jenkins. If they could leave Hugh Grant out, they could have left Meryl out too and nominated someone who actually delivered a performance that warrants an Oscar nomination. No one would be crying foul, if Meryl didn't get nominated. Then again these are the same folks who have yet to nominate Nolan for Best Director and gave Paltrow a best actress win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BirdMan Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 There are no words to describe the " we chose Nega and Streep over Adams " thing that just happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannastop Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, BirdMan said: There are no words to describe the " we chose Nega and Streep over Adams " thing that just happened Really? I think you just wrote them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, Nova said: The point is that BOTH Nega and Adams are worthy of getting nominations, whereas Meryl got nominated simply because she is Meryl. It has nothing to do with "quotas" or whatever youre talking. Ruth Nega was brilliant as was Amy Adams. I cant say the same about Meryl in Florence Foster Jenkins. If they could leave Hugh Grant out, they could have left Meryl out too and nominated someone who actually delivered a performance that warrants an Oscar nomination. No one would be crying foul, if Meryl didn't get nominated. Then again these are the same folks who have yet to nominate Nolan for Best Director and gave Paltrow a best actress win. That's why Adams snub and Streep's Fart Nom are no surprise. It's typical AMPAS. Looking at the list of nominees, we are in for another crop of instantly forgettable wins. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 My favorite nonsense post in this thread so far is "don't know who the hell over half of nominees are (cause they are in movies I don't care about)." Then what the hell are you doing on a movie website then, unless you just mentally block out any movie that doesn't play in at least 3,000 theaters? The nominees this year are a pretty famous/instantly recognizable bunch (with the only exceptions being possibly Ali and Negga and obviously young Hedges). 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Adams was snubbed - she was better than Meryl and Stone. But what matters is that Huppert was nominated. If she doesn't win then they should all turn in their SAG cards and quit the business. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grim22 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 5 minutes ago, TalismanRing said: Adams was snubbed - she was better than Meryl and Stone. But what matters is that Huppert was nominated. If she doesn't win then they should all turn in their SAG cards and quit the business. I have a feeling Huppert pulls off the upset similar to Cotillard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 The Moonlight love fest is nauseating.....best editing? Are you fucking kidding me? I have edited one film in life, and that one on a super 8. I did a better job of editing than they did on Moonlight. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 11 minutes ago, baumer said: The Moonlight love fest is nauseating.....best editing? Are you fucking kidding me? I have edited one film in life, and that one on a super 8. I did a better job of editing than they did on Moonlight. But YouAreSoWhite. They can't nominate your movie. @TalismanRing If she doesn't win then they should all turn in their SAG cards and quit the business. SAG snubbed her so she's definitely not winning that one. Still could pull a Waltz at the Oscars but tough w/o BAFTA nom. @filmlover Then what the hell are you doing on a movie website then, unless you just mentally block out any movie that doesn't play in at least 3,000 theaters? The nominees this year are a pretty famous/instantly recognizable bunch (with the only exceptions being possibly Ali and Negga and obviously young Hedges). Ali is more recognizable than some others because he was in Mockingjay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 sums it up for me 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Gittes Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 16 minutes ago, grim22 said: I have a feeling Huppert pulls off the upset similar to Cotillard. It would be amazing but Cotillard won for a middlebrow biopic where she uglied herself up and her only competition was Julie Christie who was in a tiny indie movie and a previous winner. When the entire Academy is gonna vote I can't see them supporting Huppert more than Stone or Portman. I hope I'm wrong though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 yeah, la vie en rose despite its frenchness is still very academy wheelhouse. huppert in the PAUL VERHOEVEN RAPE MOVIE will have a tougher time. btw so much hate for the jackie score on here smh. these people probably didn't even see the movie. it's the most interesting work nominated in that category for ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I think Actress is in the bag for Stone unless Huppert surprises in the end (and her movie will obviously be a much more difficult sit for most members than La La Land will be). Portman really needed to have an undeniable movie to justify a second Oscar so soon, and that didn't turn out to be the case. 3 minutes ago, Valonqar said: @filmlover Ali is more recognizable than some others because he was in Mockingjay. Thanks for making my point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmasterclay Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 23 minutes ago, baumer said: The Moonlight love fest is nauseating.....best editing? Are you fucking kidding me? I have edited one film in life, and that one on a super 8. I did a better job of editing than they did on Moonlight. And I could say the same about Deadpool and Criminal, two of your favorites of the year. People like different things. I'll take Moonlight over pretty much any major studio movie in today's world on the daily. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valonqar Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, filmlover said: Thanks for making my point. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 This year was a huge win for smaller studios by the way. Arrival, Fences (both Paramount), and Hidden Figures (Fox) are the only major studios represented in Best Picture. The rest goes to: Lionsgate, who have 4 movies with La La Land, Hacksaw Ridge (both on behalf of Summit), Hell or High Water (on behalf of CBS Films), and Manchester by the Sea via their Roadside Attractions branch (on behalf of Amazon); A24 with Moonlight; and Weinstein with Lion. Between last year (Oscar wins for Room, Amy, and Ex Machina) and this year (Moonlight and a nom for 20th Century Women), A24 is officially here to stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Just now, Jake Gittes said: It would be amazing but Cotillard won for a middlebrow biopic where she uglied herself up and her only competition was Julie Christie who was in a tiny indie movie and a previous winner. When the entire Academy is gonna vote I can't see them supporting Huppert more than Stone or Portman. I hope I'm wrong though. That and she's over 60 and foreign but not with a British accent like Helen Mirren. Still, any Academy member who could watch those two performances back to back and choose Stone over Huppert - just hand in your SAG card, give up your voting privileges and find another line of work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Isabelle Huppert was hilariously awful in Elle. Not a single scene rang true, she was clumsy, amateurish & outré. I like a good joke tho so this nomination is fun. Edited January 24, 2017 by The Futurist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, TalismanRing said: That and she's over 60 and foreign but not with a British accent like Helen Mirren. Still, any Academy member who could watch those two performances back to back and choose Stone over Huppert - just hand in your SAG card, give up your voting privileges and find another line of work. SAG didn't nominate Huppert so I guess they all should turn in their cards. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
