dragonflie
Blueblood
Posts: 1,954
Mar 14, 2005 2:10:14 GMT -4
|
Post by dragonflie on Nov 23, 2014 17:59:10 GMT -4
I agree with this. She gets so much sh%t thrown her way, and I don't really get why.
So what if she is simple, so what if she does only silly rom-coms, so what if she likes to sit around on beaches in Mexico and drink cocktails? All of those things sound pretty great to me. Why is she expected to do more? Is she secretly some undercover scientist/powerful government agent/all knowing sage who should be putting her powers to better use?
I just don't get these weird standards that are thrown her way. If I had her money and free time I think I would live a pretty similar life style.
So now she has a movie that isn't a rom-com, and part of the reason it is getting talked about is that it is different than what she normally does, different than what is expected of her- and she still gets sh%t for it. Maybe she simply wanted to try something new, and is proud of it... and if she believes she may get some accolades for it, maybe she is pushing for it- How dare she!! She needs to shut her mouth and just go back to laying on a beach in Mexico?? I think- good for her. Even if she's not that great at the acting thing- good for her for making a go at it (and carving herself a lot of money in the process). She's no Meryl Streep -but so what? Who is? It's not as if she even pretends to be...
(I don't even think she is a great actress... haven't seen Cake, probably never will. Just don't get the weird level of expectations and standards thrown her way).
|
|
|
Post by canuckcutie on Nov 23, 2014 18:16:05 GMT -4
Well she has done movies that aren't rom-com's before notably The Good Girl and Derailed where she played a seductress type. I recall all the PR around the later was Jen as you've never seen her before! Which was my clue right there that she was supposed to be playing a bad girl.
I don't fault her for attempting to stretch as I think her niche is raunchy rom-com's but I also don't think she's that great of an actress. People is her rep Huvane's mouthpiece for all things Jen - her engagement, the ring, the wedding plans, the delayed wedding plans and on and on. So it doesn't surprise me that People is now tooting the horn loudly for this supposed awards buzz. I just don't see it myself. But I guess if enough people believed it then she'll get the "poor Jen got overlooked by the Academy" sympathy card that she can play later on.
|
|
|
Post by ladyboy on Nov 24, 2014 12:44:54 GMT -4
Maybe then they could do a,"Will she have a baby and name him Oscar to console herself?" story that is 100% made up!
|
|
kali
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,446
Jul 1, 2008 23:07:20 GMT -4
|
Post by kali on Nov 25, 2014 20:38:11 GMT -4
It's just embarrassing to me. This film isn't a contender and hasn't been since TIFF. The "awards buzz" and the "distribution" deal by basically a storefront invented JUST for this film is just desperate. Oscar campaigning season is the time of actor thirst even for the frontrunners. When it's someone who has their pr team trying to create buzz out of nothing, it's even more transparent.
|
|
|
Post by forever1267 on Nov 25, 2014 21:02:07 GMT -4
She's still going to get that Golden Globe nomination, because she's Jennifer Aniston.
Ooh, AND Angelina will probably be there for Unbroken. Golden Globes Cat Fight!!! /sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by Witchie on Nov 25, 2014 22:03:29 GMT -4
She's creating her own Oscar buzz. She didn't get a Spirit Award nomination, which honors independent films.
|
|
afterglow
Landed Gentry
Posts: 677
May 29, 2006 20:52:30 GMT -4
|
Post by afterglow on Dec 10, 2014 10:44:47 GMT -4
All that hard work pimping the film paid off. She got a SAG nomination for best actress. Can she make it to the Oscars or will Marion Cotillard who's been surging on the award circut steal her spot? It feels like the four spots are reserved for Reese, Julianne, Rosamund and Felicity Jones with the last spot up for grabs.
|
|
aibohphobia
Blueblood
Posts: 1,341
Jan 29, 2006 20:23:45 GMT -4
|
Post by aibohphobia on Dec 10, 2014 11:12:14 GMT -4
She might get the Golden Globe and BFCA nominations because there's a lot of "campaigning" going on with those members, but I'm fairly certain she won't be nominated for an Oscar. The film is just too small and mediocre to get Aniston in since many voters probably aren't going to bother watching Cake because she's not someone like Jessica Lange who got in for Blue Sky in another weak year for women or even Hilary Swank.
It's just with SAG now a lot of late releases that didn't do endless Q and As or didn't get screeners out in time like Selma are at a disadvantage now because they moved up the awards date when the Oscars moved up theirs. They aren't as accurate as they use to be because there's several late releases that the 2,000 voting members still haven't got a chance to see like The Wolf of Wall Street last year or Django Unchained before that. This is why something like The Grand Budapest Hotel which was released really early in the year and is already out on DVD has an advantage over something like Into the Woods even though the SAGs usually go for the big musicals in the Best Ensemble category.
Anyway, this is great for Aniston though. She won't get as much credibility without the Oscar nomination, but she should get more now. Plus, if she ever gets close again, this can be considered a "snub" if she gets SAG/GG/BFCA and no Oscar nomination.
ETA: Also, a lot of the voters work in tv, so actors that crossover from television often have more of a chance here than with other awards bodies. Like Steve Carell was on shaky ground because he and Foxcatcher weren't showing up in places that people thought that they would only showing up here and in the AFI top 10 list, but he had an advantage at SAG because he's more well known to voters than David Oyelowo and Timothy Spall.
|
|
|
Post by twodollars on Dec 10, 2014 13:08:05 GMT -4
Congrats to Jennifer. She was mocked for even daring to campaign for this movie and she ended up with a SAG nomination. Good for her. Personally, I'd have no problem with her getting an Oscar nod over Amy Adams who has way too many nominations for mediocre performances.
|
|
aibohphobia
Blueblood
Posts: 1,341
Jan 29, 2006 20:23:45 GMT -4
|
Post by aibohphobia on Dec 11, 2014 11:21:05 GMT -4
Congrats to Jennifer. She was mocked for even daring to campaign for this movie and she ended up with a SAG nomination. Good for her. Personally, I'd have no problem with her getting an Oscar nod over Amy Adams who has way too many nominations for mediocre performances. Yes, I amend what I said yesterday sort of because of Big Eyes faring so poorly even with the Golden Globes, and I no longer think that Amy Adams is a lock for the Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical win because Moore was also nominated in that category, and I don't think the Globes will award Adams twice in a row, especially since she's in a filler role this time, when Moore winning two leading awards could be the big story of the night especially as she's never won a Globe in the film categories before. I thought that Marion Cotillard was also stronger because she has more critical support and likely the BAFTA nomination over Aniston, but she hasn't been campaigning as much as Aniston has lately. Plus, not only does she have two movies which she could both get in for so voters won't know which performance to go for, they're both very small movies. While I'm not sure I would nominate her for Cake since the movie doesn't sound very good, worse performances have gotten in, and since unfortunately Cotillard's campaign was doomed from the start because support never solidified around just one performance but for both performances, I'll be happy that it's Aniston since it could be another filler Adams nomination as you mentioned or Hilary Swank (shudder). I've actually heard that Swank gives a pretty good performance in The Homesman, but I'm side eyeing her forever for her involvement with Ramzan Kadyrov. ETA: Also for awards buffs like me, I think this is really funny and hopefully the Globes don't take it down. Someone at Awards Watch found that they put up the nominees in a weird order so that it's either in likelihood of the nominee winning or how many votes each nominee got. I think it's the latter, but either way it probably means those that are in first place now are likely to win the second round of voting. It's not really too surprising to see who is in first, but I think it's cool to see the rankings in each category. 72nd Golden Globe Nominees
|
|