Search results

I respect what she's done with her music, but it's not something that appeals to me very much. That said, I did like her song "Bury a Friend" that was used as the theme song for True Detective: Night Country.

Actually, now that I think of it, Jodie Foster also seemed genuinely delighted at Da'Vine Joy Randolph's win.

Speaking of Lily Gladstone... When Emma Stone was announced as BA winner, the other nominees had what looked like the usual good-grace reactions to losing. Except for Gladstone, who looked genuinely delighted by Emma Stone's win.

Yes! My wife was aghast when it popped up, and I had to explain the Damon/Kimmel backstory to her.

It was rather refreshing that he didn't dilly-dally.:laugh:

Hayao Miyazaki has him beat. Almost two years older, and he won this year. :thumbs-up-smiley:

My wife and I had it on in the background while we were working on our taxes.

I dunno. I was surprised that Killers of the Flower Moon didn't get a single win (unless I missed something) out of 10 noms.

Dare I bring up the fact that Linda Hunt won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for playing a character that was (a) male, and (b) Indonesian?

The basic problem here is that the nominations and votes are being made by people. And people are notorious for -- among other things -- idiocy, obstinance, wrong-headedness, prejudice, and other shit like that. People might think they are objective, but the reality is that they make choices...

I know what virtue-signalling is. The point I was trying to make is that when Lily Gladstone gets nominated for Best Actress for her performance, yes, it might be because of virtue-signalling, but it might also be that the people who nominated her actually think she deserves it. Insisting that...

First, you reaction is interesting, as you never shared exactly why you thought "virtue-signalling" was the reason Lily Gladstone was nominated for her performance. Second, my comment was intended -- and I'll concede that it might've not been taken this way -- to be neutral. I firmly believe...

Or, you know, other people might just think differently than you about her performance.

I would assume that he means there are no choices that stand out as bizarre and nonsensical. I.e., films that are held in such low esteem that they'd be unlikely to picked by anyone as a worthy picture (or held in high esteem for the wrong reasons, like, say, Tommy Wiseau's The Room. ;) ).

Reductive and dismissive is common coin when it comes to talking of just about anything. But this particular exchange reminded me of something. Back in 1993, Entertainment Weekly had an issue talking about the various films coming out in the summer through the end of the year. At one point...

From a cursory look at the slates at oscars.org, it seems like there were more instances of there being only nine nominees in the category than a full ten. In 2015, there were only eight.

The way I look at it, every single nominee in a category is deserving of a win in that category. By definition. If they don't deserve to win, they shouldn't be nominated in the first place. That only one actually does win, and the others don't, is nothing more than the way the process works. To...

That's what can make Oscar arguments frustrating. Gerwig and Robbie may have been the sixth place vote-getters in their respective categories, with only one fewer vote than the fifth place vote-getter. So, as you say, it isn't necessarily a snub, but just the way the ball bounces, or the cookie...

If that were the case, then one of those categories would be redundant. Best Picture is pretty much for the overall product, and gets presented to the producers. Best Director is specifically for his contribution, setting aside the value-added of the cinematography, music, costumes...

Which often makes Oscar arguments frustrating (and sometimes tedious).