|
Post by ladyboy on Mar 5, 2015 20:04:37 GMT -4
I don't know why J.Lo is at the Oscars, or most places, to be honest. I think of her like Charo when I was a kid - just always around and kind of trashily dressed.
Aniston? I get her presenting this year, but not always. I guess maybe the Academy can't always get big names to present if they're not up for something or a recent winner. Why don't they just have the last year's winner be the one to read/present for the current year? That way if they're some obscure person they get one last blast in the spotlight before they fade into Lifetime movies....
|
|
|
Post by Witchie on Mar 5, 2015 20:05:42 GMT -4
In defense of the Chrises, they all had major movies this year. Pine = Into the Woods (nominated), Evans = Captain America: Winter Soldier & Avengers 2, and Pratt = Guardians of the Galaxy & Jurassic Park 4. I wasn't surprised by their inclusion nor Scarlett's (Lucy & Winter Soldier). JLo...yes, I was surprised, but I figure the Academy likes her.
Since we're in her thread, I'll say that Jen was only invited because she campaigned hard and was deemed by the press as being the #1 Snub. I personally didn't think she was snubbed or should have even been in the conversation, but she had a good consultant who got her awards/nominations.
|
|
sobe
Landed Gentry
Posts: 534
Mar 10, 2005 7:03:02 GMT -4
|
Post by sobe on Mar 5, 2015 21:07:54 GMT -4
Jennifer hired an Oscar consultant. I don't recall hearing of Julianne or Rosamund or Marion hiring a consultant to lobby on their behalf. And then her "famous pals" were throwing parties and luncheons to promote the movie. So I very much think she was reaching for a nom. She was in a small movie that very few people had actually watched. She built up buzz enough that people seemed to think she was a shoo-in for a nom regardless of whether she deserved it. Let's not ignore that Sony Classics or the Weinstein Company or any other studios also have consultants (in-house and/or contracted) managing the campaigns of the other actresses, actors or films. Ones that are likely just as successful and calculating as I imagine Lisa Taback must be. Still Alice had essentially the same release schedule as Cake: one week December run, followed by wider release after nomination balloting closed. It's an awards consultant that sets that kind of strategy. Hell, Julianne Moore is also repped by Stephen Huvane (I think she even gave him a shout out in her acceptance speech), so they are all playing the game. Patricia Arquette seemed like a wire-to-wire, slam-dunk winner, but the LA Times mentioned that Boyhood's consultants were calling around in the fall to feel out whether she had better chances in lead or supporting. A consultant isn't going to get anyone very far if Oscars, GG, CCA or SAG voters aren't receptive to the performance or movie -- Hilary Swank had her own consultant (the one that handled her previous winning campaigns), Shailene Woodley had Lisa Taback, too. As for famous pals, Jane Fonda hosted a private screening in her home for voters for Marion Cotillard's movie. I just have a hard time understanding why having a consultant or friends is so damning when everyone has them working and strategizing on their behalf too, even if someone else is paying. Anyway, I've never thought being a presenter as some sacrosanct honor that was limited to serious actors. I don't really care who reads the names for best documentary or short or whatever. Personally, if I were a celeb, I might go once for the experience, and then never again, since it looks like a boring-ass way to spend four-plus hours. Just go straight to the afterparty.
|
|
|
Post by narm on Mar 5, 2015 21:30:52 GMT -4
I kinda just don't see what the big deal is. She's a an actress. Of course she is going to hustle a little. That's kind of her job. She's often referred to as lazy, but now that she put herself out there, it's like she is being told she is shooting way too high for her station in life. To me, that's crazy! I don't care who it is. Good for her for trying, if she did indeed try so hard. I mean, it's not like she is hurting anyone. And it's not as if concern-trolling about how she is out of her depth is going to make her stop. At least I hope not. I guess my major sticking point is that folks get all worked up and how dare she?! about Aniston, but the Academy sucks anyway. They reward rapists and people with serious moral transgressions. I guess Jennifer is "that tv girl" but hell, why should she only aspire as far as some folks on a message board say she should? I think the bottom line is, I don't think the Academy is too good for *anyone* and have little cred at this point. How dare she aspire, indeed.
*Kanye shrug*
|
|
|
Post by Mugsy on Mar 5, 2015 23:45:00 GMT -4
Yes, that TV girl is supposed to go away and stop making silly rom coms and spend her days tanning and decorating and hanging out at the beach so she can be criticized for lacking ambition. And if she stretches herself even a little and receives critical acclaim and award nominations, she is criticized for reaching.
Yet, those TV boys (Clooney, Depp, DiCaprio, Smith, Carrey, etc) can carry on.
|
|
|
Post by scarlet on Mar 6, 2015 0:49:45 GMT -4
Yes, that TV girl is supposed to go away and stop making silly rom coms and spend her days tanning and decorating and hanging out at the beach so she can be criticized for lacking ambition. And if she stretches herself even a little and receives critical acclaim and award nominations, she is criticized for reaching. Yet, those TV boys (Clooney, Depp, DiCaprio, Smith, Carrey, etc) can carry on. I'm highly amused at calling DiCaprio a "tv boy." Doing TV in little parts when he was a teenager and not having done any since? Yeah, don't think that qualifies. I think Jen is an OK actress and can be better-than-OK in some roles. But the fact of the matter is "Cake" wasn't a well-received movie when it premiered at the Toronto Film Festival and wasn't even going to be released to qualify for awards contention until the producers released it themselves with a newly-formed distribution company. That, to me, goes above the normal stumping. I actually don't care if she wants to play the game to that extent, but it's disingenuous for her to then be all "I don't know where all this awards talk came from."
|
|
|
Post by Witchie on Mar 6, 2015 1:29:47 GMT -4
Where is this narrative that Jen is "the TV girl" coming from? We're 10+ years post-Friends and she's worked consistently in films since then. And the films Jen chose to do for the majority of those years were comedies. She has her own production company and a ton of money. She could have easily bought the rights to a serious film and cast herself in a role. Isn't that what she did with Goree Girls? No one is telling Jen to stay in her lane. She's chosen not to stretch herself. She is in an enviable position of having some power in Hollywood. She may not be able to get a big budget film greenlit, but there has been nothing stopping her from building a portfolio of smaller roles in good films. She did that before Friends.
|
|
|
Post by narm on Mar 6, 2015 1:37:49 GMT -4
The "TV girl" reference is a dig at GOOP's airy dismissal of her, because I'm mature like that. I think it sounds like she did stretch with Cake, and that's cool.
|
|
sobe
Landed Gentry
Posts: 534
Mar 10, 2005 7:03:02 GMT -4
|
Post by sobe on Mar 6, 2015 2:50:45 GMT -4
There were also comments on the previous page comparing her to Becky Connor and Mallory Keaton, so holding her sitcom history against her isn't so far in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Mar 6, 2015 9:09:35 GMT -4
To praphrase Chris Rock, are we supposed to give her a cookie for finally doing something other than a crappy comedy? From what I've read, the critics all thought Cake was terrible and the only people who thought Jennifer deserved an Oscar nod were her, her publicist and her Oscar consultant. She deserves kudos if she actually does something good. She doesn't deserve kudos just for (finally) trying a little bit. Hollywood is not a kindergarten where you get a certificate for effort.
|
|