95th Academy Awards nominations thread

[filmlover]

21 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

I genuinely don't get what the issue here is. Asking people to watch a movie and tweet about it and vote for it seems perfectly normal tbh. The only thing that people are objecting to is that it was done without spending money?

 

Genuinely don't get the controversy here.

Well...

 

The now deleted post:

Quote

 

Celebrity influencers aside, an Instagram post on the “To Leslie” page may have violated the Academy’s rules and guidelines.

 

In a post dated two weeks ago, the official Instagram account for “To Leslie” quoted Richard Roeper’s blurb from his top 10 films of 2022 article from the Chicago Sun-Times, where he listed the movie at no. 5. The quote reads: “As much as I admired Blanchett’s work in ‘Tár,’ my favorite performance by a woman this year was delivered by the chameleonlike Andrea Riseborough in director Michael Morris’ searing drama about a mom at the final crossroads in her life after she’s lost everything due to her drinking. With an insightful script by Ryan Binaco and fine supporting work by Marc Maron, Andre Royo, Allison Janney and Stephen Root, ‘To Leslie’ ranks with ‘Leaving Las Vegas’ and ‘Crazy Heart’ as modern-day classics about the ravages of alcoholism.”

 

Calling out the competition directly as part of the campaign is definitely a no-no here.

[grim22]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Well...

 

The now deleted post:

Calling out the competition directly as part of the campaign is definitely a no-no here.

I guess it's about defining what's "part of a campaign". Movies use critic quotes on their Instagram all the time, especially ones praising something they are trying to push for awards. 

 

In the end, I think they won't rescind a nom because that's just stupid. But will set clearer guidelines.

[interiorgatordecorator]

12 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Well...

 

The now deleted post:

Calling out the competition directly as part of the campaign is definitely a no-no here.

 

thats just punishment for not hiring a campaign manager

would set a bad precedent if something silly like that gets her DQ

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

From that Variety article about the official "To Leslie" Instagram post, is this the real reason Academy frowns upon members campaigning via private emails?

 

Quote

The Academy does allow solicitations through the Academy’s approved mailing houses. Variety can confirm that the awards campaign for “To Leslie” sent FYC email blasts to members for screenings and Q&As. No evidence has been presented that Riseborough or anyone from her team directly reached out to AMPAS voters to ask for their support.

 

The Academy’s e-mail carries a hefty price tag for a self-funded campaign, charging $2,000 per blast to the entire Academy membership. A studio can only purchase one e-mail blast per week. Variety can also confirm that “To Leslie” sent at least three e-mail blasts sent to AMPAS voters, which would have been purchased by Momentum Pictures or Riseborough’s campaign team, including Narrative PR and Shelter PR.

 

Over 300 movies were deemed eligible for Oscar consideration this time around. "To Leslie" is said to be a tiny movie in the grand scheme of things, and they paid for at least 3 email blasts at $2,000 each. Some movies won't send any, and the biggest contenders take part way more often.

 

Let's say it averages out to 5 Academy email blasts per movie, for 300 movies at $2,000 a pop. That's at least $3 million a year that AMPAS is charging to send out emails--what a grift! Even if it only works out to $1m per awards season, no wonder they don't want "grassroots" campaigns to take off...

 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[titanic2187]

Grassroot campaign not allowed but big studio especially Netflix spending big money holding events like Harvey Weinstein san sexual abuse is fine....... 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

The rules about Oscar campaigns evolve as the Academy responds to studio tactics over the years. A lot of regulations in place now are in response to various stunts Harvey (and others) pulled. Here's an incident that led to the rules against negative campaigning, from 2004.

 

Quote

Academy brass are up in arms over a full-page ad the studio ran Friday in Daily Variety that promoted ”House of Sand and Fog”’s Best Supporting Actress contender Shohreh Aghdashloo by suggesting that she’s an underdog candidate who’s more deserving of the honor than the frontrunner, ”Cold Mountain”’s Renée Zellweger. It’s a potential violation that the Academy could have punished with penalties from reducing DreamWorks’ allotment of tickets to the Feb. 29 Oscar ceremony, to disqualifying the film altogether.

 

The ad featured four excerpts from print and TV news stories that touted Aghdashloo. Three of them said that, while they expected Zellweger would win, Aghdashloo should win. Academy executive director Bruce Davis described the ad as an ”attack ad,” telling the Los Angeles Times: ”It’s certainly a new and unwelcome step downward in campaigning.” He said many Oscar voters had seen the ad and had responded ”with varying degrees of surprise and amazement.”

 

DreamWorks cofounder Jeffrey Katzenberg may have defused the controversy with a quick apology. ”The ad was a mistake. It shouldn’t have happened,” he told the Times. ”In a year in which everyone has pledged to take the higher road, we made a very bad and ill-advised mistake.” Terry Press, the studio’s marketing chief, echoed the boss, telling the Times: ”We can be accused of stupidity, but not maliciousness. It’s an ad promoting Shohreh. We didn’t take out an ad saying ‘Don’t vote for Renée Zellweger.”’ In any case, voters may well have made up their minds by the time the ad ran on Friday, just four days before the balloting deadline.

 

The To Leslie situation with the Instagram post is similar--an official movie ad using quotes from critics implying this performer was better than that performer. The Academy forbids it, because they don't want the movies/actors openly running attack ads on each other. Awards season whisper campaigns aren't great but the situation could be much, much worse.

 

Are certain parties angered by Riseborough shaking up the established system and looking for a way to nip similar stunts in the bud? Probably, on top of genuine anger about which actors will get to benefit from a last-minute "grassroots" campaign boosted by the A-list. And the rule violations (which might have slid, if the nom hadn't happened) will be the pretext for the Academy to punish, and warn other stars not to disrupt the awards ecosystem by trying this en masse next year.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

As expected, Andrea stays, the Academy will review/update their rules after the ceremony, and Frances Fisher is in big trouble...

 

There was an email to members and this letter from the Academy's CEO:

 

Dear Academy members,

As I am sure many of you have read, there have been some concerns over recent campaigning. Through our review, we discovered social media and outreach tactics that caused concern. We are addressing these concerns directly with the responsible parties.

The purpose of the Academy’s campaign regulations is to ensure a fair and ethical awards process—these are core values of the Academy. It is apparent that components of these regulations must be clarified to help create a better framework for respectful, inclusive, and unbiased campaigning. The Academy continuously assesses and evolves our policies, rules, and procedures, and these changes will be made after this awards cycle and shared with our membership.

We want our members to cast their Oscars votes based solely on the artistic and technical merits of the eligible films and achievements. The integrity of our esteemed institution depends on it. As we head into finals voting, please make sure that you are upholding the Academy’s Standards of Conduct and current Awards rules and campaign regulations. Also, please refrain from publicly discussing your voting preferences or attempting to persuade others to vote similarly.

If you have any questions about these rules and regulations, please contact member-relations@oscars.org. As always, thank you for upholding the values of the Academy—our members help to define who we are as an organization. We have an incredible group of films and artists to honor at the Oscars on March 12, and I hope you all will join in to celebrate them.

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Bill Kramer
Chief Executive Officer

 

I wonder if all the actors saying the backlash to the nomination was unfair, if they will calm down now or if Riseborough will Green Book her way to a win. Get ready to see, "No one can tell me how to vote!" all over the Anonymous Oscar Ballots...

 

[CaptNathanBrittles]

I just watched EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE AT ALL ONCE. Ke Huy Quan getting nominated for Best Supporting Actor is an even bigger joke than Pitt's for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD. He's in almost every single scene!

[filmlover]

4 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

As expected, Andrea stays, the Academy will review/update their rules after the ceremony, and Frances Fisher is in big trouble...

 

There was an email to members and this letter from the Academy's CEO:

 

 

 

 

I wonder if all the actors saying the backlash to the nomination was unfair, if they will calm down now or if Riseborough will Green Book her way to a win. Get ready to see, "No one can tell me how to vote!" all over the Anonymous Oscar Ballots...

 

That picture they chose for Riseborough couldn't be more perfect. 

 

Frances Fisher though:

 

 

1 hour ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

I just watched EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE AT ALL ONCE. Ke Huy Quan getting nominated for Best Supporting Actor is an even bigger joke than Pitt's for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD. He's in almost every single scene!

Everyone else in the movie is basically second/third/fourth etc. banana to Yeoh, the fact it managed to get three other acting nominations (and is looking like a locked winner for one of those) is a testament to how much of a frontrunner it is.

[WrathOfHan]

The Riseborough outcome is exactly what I expected. She's not guilty by any means and shouldn't have the nom rescinded, but the campaign clearly broke guidelines and can't hide behind being the little indie that could. Good for Andrea lol

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

4 hours ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

I just watched EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE AT ALL ONCE. Ke Huy Quan getting nominated for Best Supporting Actor is an even bigger joke than Pitt's for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD. He's in almost every single scene!

Someone runs a Twitter account and website devoted to actor screentime for Oscar nominated performances and contenders throughout the year. Timing it all can show how impressions of screentime can be false, based on strength of performance, placement in the story, star power, etc.

 

Here are the stats for EEAAO, a breakdown of both total minutes and the percentage of the movie's overall screentime:

 

Quan's in less than 50 percent of the movie, and has way less screentime than Yeoh. OTOH, a couple of Best Actor performances last year fell in the 41-42 percent range (Denzel and Javier Bardem), but they are multi-nominated stars, former winners with big industry clout.

 

Two of this year's Best Actor performances are still theatrical exclusives, so the stats aren't complete yet...

 

95th Academy Awards - 2022

• Brendan Fraser (The Whale) - coming soon

• Bill Nighy (Living) - coming soon

• Paul Mescal (Aftersun) - 58:14 / 57.26%

• Colin Farrell (The Banshees of Inisherin) - 1:09:26 / 60.96%

• Austin Butler (Elvis) - 1:35:34 / 60.01%

 

I think Fraser is onscreen for a high percentage of his film, not sure about Nighy, but both are the character with the most screentime in their movie.

 

Maybe if Ke Huy Quan had gone lead, it would’ve been a Michelle Williams situation where some groups reject the category placement, and he misses at half the precursors. As it is, he's sweeping in Supporting Actor. If you look over Oscar history, it's really unusual for the Lead Actor to have 30+ minutes less onscreen than their movie's Lead Actress.

 

Here's the website I used:

 

https://www.screentimecentral.com/about

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[cookie]

Quan isn't a POV character in EEAaO, though, only Yeoh is. Being in the movie a lot doesn't automatically make you a lead.

Edited February 1, 2023 by cookie

[The Dark Alfred]

It's daft to use screen time as a definite tool. A character's presence and importance to a film varies, depends on the film. Someone can have more impact in 5 minutes than other in 30.

[filmlover]

8 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Someone runs a Twitter account and website devoted to actor screentime for Oscar nominated performances and contenders throughout the year. Timing it all can show how impressions of screentime can be false, based on strength of performance, placement in the story, star power, etc.

 

Here are the stats for EEAAO, a breakdown of both total minutes and the percentage of the movie's overall screentime:

 

Quan's in less than 50 percent of the movie, and has way less screentime than Yeoh. OTOH, a couple of Best Actor performances last year fell in the 41-42 percent range (Denzel and Javier Bardem), but they are multi-nominated stars, former winners with big industry clout.

 

Two of this year's Best Actor performances are still theatrical exclusives, so the stats aren't complete yet...

 

95th Academy Awards - 2022

• Brendan Fraser (The Whale) - coming soon

• Bill Nighy (Living) - coming soon

• Paul Mescal (Aftersun) - 58:14 / 57.26%

• Colin Farrell (The Banshees of Inisherin) - 1:09:26 / 60.96%

• Austin Butler (Elvis) - 1:35:34 / 60.01%

 

 

I think Fraser is onscreen for a high percentage of his film, not sure about Nighy, but both are the character with the most screentime in their movie.

 

Maybe if Ke Huy Quan had gone lead, it would’ve been a Michelle Williams situation where some groups reject the category placement, and he misses at half the precursors. As it is, he's sweeping in Supporting Actor. If you look over Oscar history, it's really unusual for the Lead Actor to have 30+ minutes less onscreen than their movie's Lead Actress.

 

Here's the website I used:

 

https://www.screentimecentral.com/about

 

I'll be surprised if Fraser's isn't 90% or something.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

10 hours ago, cookie said:

Quan isn't a POV character in EEAaO, though, only Yeoh is. Being in the movie a lot doesn't automatically make you a lead.

 

6 hours ago, The Dark Alfred said:

It's daft to use screen time as a definite tool. A character's presence and importance to a film varies, depends on the film. Someone can have more impact in 5 minutes than other in 30.

I don't think screentime alone determines if someone is lead or supporting, but things like POV/impact/presence/character evolution are subjective, and not everyone's definition of what makes an actor the lead or not. Back in the Golden Age, Lead vs Supporting was an issue of career status, not the role itself.

 

Even being top-billed isn't always a definitive measure, because maybe the person with the most screentime isn't very well known. So for advertising purposes, it helps to put the established star's name/face out there instead. But sometimes it's Carey Mulligan in She Said, going Supporting Actress to try to get the nom (better luck next year, lol).

 

Also, people's perceptions of screentime can be wildly off. From prior years I've encountered comments like, "Gaga was practically supporting in A Star Is Born!" and "Kodi Smit-McPhee was in Power of the Dog more than Cumberbatch," and that Hopkins was in Silence of the Lambs for 18 minutes. People will believe what they want, but that doesn't make it reality. Having the screentime measured out isn't a bad thing, it's just information that can be used in a number of ways.

 

People IMO are more accepting of non-awards movies having multiple leads of the same gender, three leads, or co-leads where one star has 5-10 less minutes onscreen than the other. Like, nobody is making the case that Hobbs is lead and Shaw is supporting, but if it were an Oscar movie, someone would really try arguing that.

Edited February 1, 2023 by BoxOfficeFangrl

[CaptNathanBrittles]

10 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Someone runs a Twitter account and website devoted to actor screentime for Oscar nominated performances and contenders throughout the year. Timing it all can show how impressions of screentime can be false, based on strength of performance, placement in the story, star power, etc.

 

Here are the stats for EEAAO, a breakdown of both total minutes and the percentage of the movie's overall screentime:

 

Quan's in less than 50 percent of the movie, and has way less screentime than Yeoh. OTOH, a couple of Best Actor performances last year fell in the 41-42 percent range (Denzel and Javier Bardem), but they are multi-nominated stars, former winners with big industry clout.

 

Two of this year's Best Actor performances are still theatrical exclusives, so the stats aren't complete yet...

 

95th Academy Awards - 2022

• Brendan Fraser (The Whale) - coming soon

• Bill Nighy (Living) - coming soon

• Paul Mescal (Aftersun) - 58:14 / 57.26%

• Colin Farrell (The Banshees of Inisherin) - 1:09:26 / 60.96%

• Austin Butler (Elvis) - 1:35:34 / 60.01%

 

 

I think Fraser is onscreen for a high percentage of his film, not sure about Nighy, but both are the character with the most screentime in their movie.

 

Maybe if Ke Huy Quan had gone lead, it would’ve been a Michelle Williams situation where some groups reject the category placement, and he misses at half the precursors. As it is, he's sweeping in Supporting Actor. If you look over Oscar history, it's really unusual for the Lead Actor to have 30+ minutes less onscreen than their movie's Lead Actress.

 

Here's the website I used:

 

https://www.screentimecentral.com/about

 

 

Very interesting website. Thanks for the link!

 

I counted 16 Best Actor winners who had less percentage screen time than Ke Huy Quan so leading definitely wasn't outside the bounds.

 

The biggest joke has got to be Brando (23%) in Leading and Pacino (38%) in Supporting for THE GODFATHER. 😄

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

 

Very interesting website. Thanks for the link!

 

I counted 16 Best Actor winners who had less percentage screen time than Ke Huy Quan so leading definitely wasn't outside the bounds.

 

The biggest joke has got to be Brando (23%) in Leading and Pacino (38%) in Supporting for THE GODFATHER. 😄

 

Pacino hated that he wasn't campaigned in lead and didn't go to the ceremony that year in protest. The same energy when Leo skipped the Oscars when he got snubbed for Titanic...

 

 

Maybe James Hong would’ve gotten more of a push in Supporting Actor if Ke Huy Quan in lead had taken off. What's the last movie to get 5 acting nominations?

 

I'm listening to the new "And The Runner Up Is" episode and they were saying that to go lead when supporting is justifiable, is more "category gambling" than "category fraud" because it's riskier. 

 

 

[filmlover]

13 minutes ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

Maybe James Hong would’ve gotten more of a push in Supporting Actor if Ke Huy Quan in lead had taken off. What's the last movie to get 5 acting nominations?

Network in 1976, apparently.

[Noctis]

Just saw EEAAO...can someone explain to me why Jamie Lee Curtis was nominated for BSA? I don't get it. She gave a good performance, but nothing worthy of being nominated for an Oscar.

[Noctis]

On 1/27/2023 at 10:07 PM, grim22 said:

 

 

 

Not getting the nomination for Arrival is looking more and more like a pivot point in Adams' career. That's almost exactly the moment her movie choices started to become worse as well.

 

Imagine giving two stunning performances in Arrival and Nocturnal and end up being nominated for neither. Her missing the BA for Arrival still makes me cringe to this day.