Jump to content
Spaghetti

2018/19 Golden Globes: Official Discussion Thread | Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book are Best Picture winners

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

The director is the face of almost every film. The film getting the award is basically Bryan Singer getting recognition. Makes it much easier for him to get another film made. I am pretty sure that Red Sonja movie with him directing would have never happened but with this shit, it is surely happening and Singer will be making his comeback into the industry because he directed a movie that won BP in golden globes and (most likely) nominated for BP in the Academy Awards.

 

Also, OP isn't saying white predators are worse. Just that it is easier for them to get away with rape. Funnily enough, the only big celebrity I know who has been properly arrested for being a predator is black (Bill Cosby).

Yeah, remember Mel Gibson?

 

Not as bad as Singer, but the man went from pretty much excommunicated from Hollywood to a director nomination.  A Singer movie getting showered by praise all but ensures the guy is going to get studio work again in the future, despite what happened earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Panda said:

I guess how I see it by a supporting a product you support the creator.  I really don’t find the film to be that good (and it seems people are split on whether they find it good or not), that’s a difference of taste.

 

Maybe there could be a time when we can separate art from artist, but not until we actually learn to deal justice to the artist.  But as long as the guy’s name is on the thing and he’s profiting from its success, the high level support for it implicitly supports him.  

 

Im sick of our society verbally saying “rape is bad” but not acting like it, and giving excuses about how it’s more than just the man whenever we award the rapist or sexual assaulter with best picture, a Supreme Court position or a presidency.  

 

I guess im not at a place where I can separate the art from the artist until our society can learn to take sexual assault crimes seriously.  The Me Too movement was a small step forward, but after this year it feels like we’re no further along.

I am more concern about how was the outcome of all those charges and lawsuit? Seem like they are taking forever to punish them legally. 

 

I strongly object that a film should be un-rewarded just because of the director is a predator. I wish to see the director go to jail, canned right away. Bashing his movie just will make him lose his career, not his entire life. He will still do no good somewhere else.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Panda said:

Yes, shitting on people like Fisher was wrong, and I was wrong for making a sarcastic jab at her tweet.

 

And I think there’s a difference between personally liking the movie, and giving the film a giant platform and marketing tool to put more money in Singer’s pocket.

 

I think I'm gonna resolve myself to simply not going to see the film; if what you say about Bryan Singer getting paid for the film is right, then that's one reason added to a lot of reasons as to why I don't think I really need to see the film. I'm sure I'd personally enjoy it, but I really want to see Beale Street and The Favourite, and after that, I think I'm done seeing 2018 films in theaters; I'm ready to start the new year, and I'm ready to start it with Glass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

Why still hasn't he arrested and put in the jail?  

The most effective way to end the crime is to punish the abuser directly and legally.  

First, you need the victims to come forward, hopefully with some corroborating evidence (be it physical, other witnesses, etc)...

Then, it needs to be within the statute of limitations...Cosby got nailed b/c he never stopped, b/c most of his old crimes were untouchable...(and even then, his 1st trial ended in a mistrial with a hung jury and he was only convicted b/c prosecutors were willing to spend the money to try him twice...that's not common)...

 

And, then, you need the defendant to not be able to silence or otherwise buy off the victims...like in some of the major sports star incidents with women, people with money tend to be able to buy off their indiscretions...or like with Weinstein, use his power in the industry to keep people quiet...it sucks, but if the victims never come forward and/or request the charges be dropped or worse, recant, it's not like your gonna go after him/her on perjury after they suffered enough the 1st time...

 

These types of cases are tough to make in the best of circumstances...and many times, you don't get the best of circumstances, especially when dealing with powered or moneyed defendants...

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I wonder if WB should have put ASIB in musical or comedy rather than drama, I think it could won against Green Book. 

Edited by Jonwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is way easier for a director then an actor to keep working.

 

The Director gets money from friends or uses his own, 'someone' will continue to work with them and make movies.

 

Gibson went as an outside for a long time really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonwo said:

I wonder if WB should have put ASIB in musical or comedy rather than drama, I think it could won against Green Book. 

It lost against even lesser competition so does it matter?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lorddemaxus said:

The director is the face of almost every film.

I picked this only as an example out of many posts where I think a move fans forgets GA is not the same as a movie fan

 

The face of a film is in the majority of the cases still... the actors. in especial the leads of the cast.

They do also, as a sum, per movie the highest amount of 'face-showing-promo', including many of those little 3 minutes interview... bites, = tons of promotion.

I do not speak about the big events like announcements at a SH-convention, during a premiere or similar. Where the cast and the producers too often have their say.

There are few director where The People (as in normal GA) are aware of the name or even which films they do and did. Including actual movies and movies done decades back.

Singer is not one of them (GA as in not being SH-movie fans, will be able to name some titles at best)

Even if they get aware about a name, maybe through creating a surprise hit or like the first move to reach... fill in an insane amount of money made, or e.g. 10 Oscars..., usually does not mean they know about which movies else the director did. Hence the reason they like to advertise like 'from the producers... or directors... of movie whatever' and not from director fill-in-name, who also did movie fill-in-list-of-titles

If a movie is based on a very famous book series, a bio-pic of whoever, the main focus is even less on the director, it’s on the person / group of persons... the movie is about and the actors/actresses who play him/her/them.

 

A director is also not the focus comparable to e.g. an indie... if he/she was only contracted as a director. Contract director work is not even the slightest similar to the creativity,... of an indie movie, where the director is often also the writer or co-writer, the producer or co-producer,... and also often part of the creative team see props and.... Or even the location searcher....

If its especially a music based bio, than the focus is also a lot on the music.... another brick to block the director from being the main focus

If a director gets to be - for certain events, early on promo... - to be the focus to a degree (already split up to who will be / is the actor/actresses getting casted for it, what kind of voice...) and later gets kicked out for a scandal.... he/she usually is not involved in the following promo at all.

In such a case the director is not the focus of a movie to even a considerable amount, but he/she is in the focus of the press and... 'fans' who focus for whatever reason on him/her, but less for the movie, it’s for what caused the scandal, the getting kicked out, reactions and so on.

 

In a decade (o.k., optimistic, probably already in 2020) the GA will maybe remember if reminded on... about the scandal, a small % maybe even him being the director, but mostly the movie will be remembered for... the focus of the who actually the movie is about: Freddy Mercury and Queen, and probably mostly: their music.

Hmm, might be interesting to learn what the members of the band Queen think about the assumption Singer is the face of the movie. (I'd duck after saying something like that into their face!)

 

I am all about excluding people to be proven to have done bad things (not only film/art, not only sexual assaults,...), depending on the details also on people in question to have done (for protection of...) =the 2nd one is already a bit dangerous ...

But:

The awareness / sensitivity for this increased rather recently. They reacted accordingly, see kicking out, closing down his bureau, seemingly no new job with a big company....

 

To expect more / ask for more should go into the direction of the justice system, not to companies, organizations, other people out of the movie business and its professional outlets,...  that already did, what was expected (for the time) from them (even if they were late, see not hiring him for it to begin with)

That also includes that, as he is not involved in any promo, including the promo for awards, to judge the movie for what it is:

a music bio-pic, to not ignore the '99%' of the work done by others, see the cast, crew, and the people that usually do still not get listed in those cast & crew lists.

 

I think it’s a very good thing people protest a certain person, if said name gets released or the scandal gets released... you'll get the drift. But to still... react so strongly after the person got kicked out, how shall that support the movement, e.g. how to give the studios... incentive to kick out people, not work with them anymore, if that does not get - seemingly - acknowledged?

Hence the reason I am so very much happy with the movie's financial success, neither Freddie Mercury nor Queen deserve the bad decisions of others (I think they contracted him based on the sexuality, thinking he has insight... BS)

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TwoMisfits said:

First, you need the victims to come forward, hopefully with some corroborating evidence (be it physical, other witnesses, etc)...

Then, it needs to be within the statute of limitations...Cosby got nailed b/c he never stopped, b/c most of his old crimes were untouchable...(and even then, his 1st trial ended in a mistrial with a hung jury and he was only convicted b/c prosecutors were willing to spend the money to try him twice...that's not common)...

 

And, then, you need the defendant to not be able to silence or otherwise buy off the victims...like in some of the major sports star incidents with women, people with money tend to be able to buy off their indiscretions...or like with Weinstein, use his power in the industry to keep people quiet...it sucks, but if the victims never come forward and/or request the charges be dropped or worse, recant, it's not like your gonna go after him/her on perjury after they suffered enough the 1st time...

 

These types of cases are tough to make in the best of circumstances...and many times, you don't get the best of circumstances, especially when dealing with powered or moneyed defendants...

Totally agree

 

What might be a reason in Singers case (or better two reasons):

one time he seems to not have been even in the country as he then allegedly did something (I think that was durig the filming of X-Men 1)

a certain mother 'gave' her son to someone else for the promise he'll get roles (and that one was known to be more than questionable at that time) and Singer met that son at a party, it could even have been held by said known bad one (even there is a possibility of Singer not even been at the party, been in another country) = I read that I think more than 10y back, not sur who did the party.

So if he was at the party: did Singer knew the 'frind/guest' was still a minor? Seemingly (I am face-blind, I can not judge that) the son didn't look as young as he was and can it be expected to guess a minor being there if the party ws a pool-sex-party or whatever?)

Into the open that story came only after the former teen didn't get the hoped for big roles, the Singer detail only being a side-information

 

I do not doubt Singer having done things not legal, but I do see it might be difficult for a prosecutor to find beliefable victims or witnesses in certain circumstances

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleased for Richard Madden, Bodyguard was proper brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, filmlover said:

To be fair, Singer is ultimately going to get the biggest payday of anyone involved with the film because it’s still his movie despite being fired. That’s probably why most people are annoyed with the wins, not so much the movie itself. 

Brian May and Roger Taylor are the ones getting the most profit. Especially because they're getting music revenue too (which has been huge at streaming since the movie opened)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the BR win hate. First of all was Brian singer ever actually convicted of anything? Because as of now it's a bit much to assume he's a predator. Secondly everyone seems to love this movie, thousands of people worked on this movie and it deserves all the praise it's getting so why all the hate? It's certainly better than last year's  Shape of Water 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

Imagine rooting for an extremely mediocre biopic just to stick it to the libtards and the "elite" critics (who live in cramped studios and work for dying newspapers just because of their love of film - such bad, elite people!)

I think the problem you and alot of others who actually agree with you nonsense is you're too young to get why people appreciated this movie. In the UK everyone seems to have loved this and somehow I doubt their choice was made because they wanted to stick it to 'libtards' or critics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, filmlover said:

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close was nominated just 7 years ago and that had a sub-50% RT score.

Thank you, yikes! 

 

Bohemian Rhapsody doesn’t scream Oscar material to me, but I know most people love it. I thought it was just ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.