Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Variety)   The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is conducting a review of campaign procedures after Andrea Riseborough's surprise Oscar nomination for best actress for the film 'To Leslie' - A film which grossed only $27,000 at the box office   (variety.com) divider line
62
    More: Misc, Film, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Music, Actor, Academy Awards, Voting, wake of Andrea Riseborough, Golden Globe Award  
•       •       •

1071 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 28 Jan 2023 at 1:50 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



62 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
cretinbob [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-27 11:25:10 PM  
Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.
 
cretinbob [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-27 11:26:07 PM  
Oh.
Yeah, can't do that.
 
All Intensive Purposes [BareFark]
2023-01-28 1:57:31 AM  
Probably to make up for snubbing her for Mandy.
 
tembaarmswide [TotalFark]
2023-01-28 1:58:11 AM  
There isn't an award show in existence that has even a hint of legitimacy.  Every one of them is the equivalent of patting themselves on the back.
 
Practical_Draconian
2023-01-28 1:59:50 AM  
Didn't Harvey Weinstein notoriously bust balls for votes, raising eyebrows about Shakespeare in Love?

/something something phrasing
 
6nome
2023-01-28 2:15:17 AM  

tembaarmswide: There isn't an award show in existence that has even a hint of legitimacy.  Every one of them is the equivalent of patting themselves on the back.


Aaaand we're done here.
 
cew-smoke
2023-01-28 2:30:35 AM  
Here's the utter bullsh-t about the whole thing. She (or her team) did EXACTLY what every other big name actor and studio do. They game the system to get their name/movie on the voting roster. Nobody asks where any of the big name actors and actresses got their money from. Even though they do the SAME farkING thing. Get PR firms to do whatever it takes to get their names in front of the Academy voters. This is ridiculous. I've never seen this woman's movie and nor do I care if she wins or loses. But for them to castigate this women and her PR firms for doing what they're supposed to do is just gross and hypocritical. As-holes the lot of them.
 
Aussie_As
2023-01-28 2:34:41 AM  

cew-smoke: Here's the utter bullsh-t about the whole thing. She (or her team) did EXACTLY what every other big name actor and studio do. They game the system to get their name/movie on the voting roster. Nobody asks where any of the big name actors and actresses got their money from. Even though they do the SAME farkING thing. Get PR firms to do whatever it takes to get their names in front of the Academy voters. This is ridiculous. I've never seen this woman's movie and nor do I care if she wins or loses. But for them to castigate this women and her PR firms for doing what they're supposed to do is just gross and hypocritical. As-holes the lot of them.


That's why TFA concludes even after expressing much concern about certain "campaign" activity that this nomination will probably stand, they're very unlikely to pull it. TFA seems a bit click-baity rather than this is an actual problem.
 
AmbassadorBooze
2023-01-28 2:35:13 AM  
Black panther wakanda forever.  Choose an actress.

Big movie win.  Problem solved.
 
ReaverZ
2023-01-28 2:47:26 AM  

cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.


no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated
 
OgreMagi
2023-01-28 2:49:24 AM  
Sounds like someone who is not part of the Hollywood inside circle snagged a nomination without the proper permission.
 
paulleah
2023-01-28 2:54:52 AM  

ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated


Tapes sent, steaming link sent...
 
ReaverZ
2023-01-28 3:04:07 AM  

paulleah: ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated

Tapes sent, steaming link sent...


I was wondering about that but nothing like that was said in the article
 
Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo
2023-01-28 3:05:25 AM  
A fair number of the members of the Academy don't even watch all the Best Picture noms.  I'd bet good odds a number of the people voting for her never saw her performance.  The whole thing is a circle-jerk, but because it's about Hollywood it's big news.
 
Sin'sHero [TotalFark]
2023-01-28 3:31:29 AM  
It's no, "Rochelle, Rochelle" but it has it's moments.
 
Pestifer [TotalFark]
2023-01-28 7:11:25 AM  

paulleah: ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated

Tapes sent, steaming link sent...


It couldn't have been THAT bad, could it?
 
buravirgil
2023-01-28 8:29:39 AM  

cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.


The performances are as skillful as they come, but the subject (alcohol and dysfunction) is too much for many. It's a character study that are rare since the 1970s.

The performances outshine the story by the margin of a forced third-act redemption. Something this movie avoided:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
flappy_penguin [TotalFark]
2023-01-28 8:29:46 AM  
i think they(ampas) changed the rules during the pandemic and i don't know if they changed them back. pre-covid a film had to play for 7 consecutive days between noon and 10pm at least a couple times a day at a commercial cinema in LA county or Manhattan. or sometimes both(different rules for docs or shorts etc) in order to be considered for an Oscar©®™™™ nomination. Believe me there were some real morons that thought they were on their way to oscar gold if they just shelled out the $10k to rent a cinema for a week.
 
Stud Gerbil
2023-01-28 8:38:25 AM  
I'm still reeling over them snubbing Foar Pocky Frum Boxxy
 
optikeye [TotalFark]
2023-01-28 8:40:10 AM  

ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated


no money = Hollywood accounting.
Star Wars barely covered it cost of production.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.
 
thornhill
2023-01-28 8:43:53 AM  

optikeye: ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated

no money = Hollywood accounting.
Star Wars barely covered it cost of production.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.


You're conflation box office receipts and revenue.
 
Barricaded Gunman
2023-01-28 9:23:47 AM  
FTFA: The drama, which grossed only $27,000 at the box office, has come in for scrutiny for the targeted campaigning conducted by its supporters on behalf of Riseborough.

The fact that it's become standard practice for "supporters" of a film to have a budget with which to bribe lobby the voting members of the Academy for an award really underscores how meaningless these things are.
 
Kris_Romm
2023-01-28 9:41:02 AM  
Cate Blanchett, who's another nominee, looks very snakey being one of the organizers of this.  What better way to improve your own odds than filling another nom slot with someone with no chance of winning?
 
Trocadero
2023-01-28 9:46:32 AM  

paulleah: ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated

Tapes sent, steaming link sent...


Which is why the Oscars have been nominating mostly TV movie crap for almost 40 years now.
 
Flappyhead
2023-01-28 10:28:46 AM  

cew-smoke: Here's the utter bullsh-t about the whole thing. She (or her team) did EXACTLY what every other big name actor and studio do. They game the system to get their name/movie on the voting roster. Nobody asks where any of the big name actors and actresses got their money from. Even though they do the SAME farkING thing. Get PR firms to do whatever it takes to get their names in front of the Academy voters. This is ridiculous. I've never seen this woman's movie and nor do I care if she wins or loses. But for them to castigate this women and her PR firms for doing what they're supposed to do is just gross and hypocritical. As-holes the lot of them.


If you've ever wondered why The Two Towers basically got ignored in 2002, Peter Jackson refused to do the gladhanding and sucking up that was expected.  The studio then pretty much forced him to the next year.
 
Michael J Faux
2023-01-28 10:36:04 AM  

tembaarmswide: There isn't an award show in existence that has even a hint of legitimacy.  Every one of them is the equivalent of patting themselves on the back.


Never been nominated, huh?
 
mofa [TotalFark]
2023-01-28 10:46:32 AM  
This could risk throwing the legitimacy of the Oscars into doubt. What will we do?
 
skyotter
2023-01-28 11:16:55 AM  
Hold up, their deliberately-obfuscated process of backroom deals and secret votes is easily corruptable?  No way.  Shocked face etc.
 
thornhill
2023-01-28 11:17:34 AM  
So basically the problem is that they ran a grassroots campaign instead of running paid advertisements?
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2023-01-28 11:19:40 AM  
Mia Goth should have been nominated for Pearl.
 
thornhill
2023-01-28 11:20:29 AM  

Kris_Romm: Cate Blanchett, who's another nominee, looks very snakey being one of the organizers of this.  What better way to improve your own odds than filling another nom slot with someone with no chance of winning?


If you've ever seen an interview with Cate, I don't think she cares about winning more awards. She gets paid a lot to do whatever film and plays she wants, and she seems to enjoy action movies as much as Oscar bait and Ibsen.
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2023-01-28 11:20:40 AM  

cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.


Ohwaityoureseriousletmelaughharder.jpg
 
Tyrone Slothrop
2023-01-28 11:26:06 AM  

optikeye: ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated

no money = Hollywood accounting.
Star Wars barely covered it cost of production.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.


Show me where this movie brought in as much money as Star Wars.
 
optikeye [TotalFark]
2023-01-28 11:58:02 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: optikeye: ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated

no money = Hollywood accounting.
Star Wars barely covered it cost of production.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.

Show me where this movie brought in as much money as Star Wars.


You are selectively reading. Show me where Star Wars made as much as Gone with Wind. SHOW ME.
Star Was has had some time to bring in money.

That fact that Star Wars even covered it's catering budget was shock everyone including Lucas.
https://www.insider.com/when-george-lucas-knew-star-wars-was-a-hit
Until it 'caught fire' in it's limited release it only made 1.7 million. I think the original budget was around 13 then it caught fire and piled on money.
Still the 'Hollywood' accounting was why Lucas created his own production company after THX and American Graffiti.
 
ODBHB
2023-01-28 12:02:20 PM  
It's a little gem of a movie about addiction and redemption. Her performance was extraordinary, and she deserves a nod. Sad that all this negative press will take away what a powerhouse of an actress she is. Bonus the movie co-stars Marc Maron and Andre Royo (aka Bubbles from the Wire).
 
austerity101
2023-01-28 1:09:41 PM  

All Intensive Purposes: Probably to make up for snubbing her for Mandy.


I loved that movie, but Riseborough wasn't particularly amazing in it. She gives better performances in The Death of Stalin, Nancy (which came out the same year as Mandy), and Possessor.
 
austerity101
2023-01-28 1:11:38 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: The drama, which grossed only $27,000 at the box office, has come in for scrutiny for the targeted campaigning conducted by its supporters on behalf of Riseborough.

The fact that it's become standard practice for "supporters" of a film to have a budget with which to bribe lobby the voting members of the Academy for an award really underscores how meaningless these things are.


This. The amount of money the film cost to make should be completely irrelevant to the process. Indeed, if the system were actually fair and legitimately based on talent, we'd see a whole hell of a lot more lower-budget films being nominated.
 
austerity101
2023-01-28 1:17:00 PM  
I'd not heard of this film before this thread. I watched the trailer. It looks like exactly the kind of film that would be nominated for a few Oscars. I don't mean that in a bad way, just that it possesses traits we see in a lot of Oscar winners. This "controversy" is nonsense.
 
bababa
2023-01-28 3:55:48 PM  
So it's OK for a rapist to tirelessly campaign on behalf of his movies and his favorite actresses, but god forbid people should see a remarkable performance in a low-budget indie film and try to get this performance the attention it deserves. All of the other acting nominees had studio campaigns backing them as well.
 
stoli n coke
2023-01-28 4:41:59 PM  

Flappyhead: cew-smoke: Here's the utter bullsh-t about the whole thing. She (or her team) did EXACTLY what every other big name actor and studio do. They game the system to get their name/movie on the voting roster. Nobody asks where any of the big name actors and actresses got their money from. Even though they do the SAME farkING thing. Get PR firms to do whatever it takes to get their names in front of the Academy voters. This is ridiculous. I've never seen this woman's movie and nor do I care if she wins or loses. But for them to castigate this women and her PR firms for doing what they're supposed to do is just gross and hypocritical. As-holes the lot of them.

If you've ever wondered why The Two Towers basically got ignored in 2002, Peter Jackson refused to do the gladhanding and sucking up that was expected.  The studio then pretty much forced him to the next year.


It got ignored because the Academy was waiting to see if he stuck the landing with part 3.
 
mekkab [TotalFark]
2023-01-28 5:32:54 PM  

bababa: So it's OK for a rapist


which one?
 
mjbok
2023-01-28 5:33:55 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Mia Goth should have been nominated for Pearl.


I would agree with this.  She has two moments in that film that are up there with the best acting I've seen in any film.

optikeye: Until it 'caught fire' in it's limited release it only made 1.7 million.


1.7 million was unheard of then.  Even says so in the article you linked.  SW was a hit from the day it opened in limited release.
 
stoli n coke
2023-01-28 5:37:44 PM  
And how much did "All Quiet" make?

Academy voters don't consider box office. 99% of the time, they're voting off screener copies of movies (a friend is in the director's guild, and gets a big box of DVDs of potential nominees sent to him every awards season).

As long as a movie plays in at least one theater in LA and one in New York for at least a week, it's eligible for awards.
 
Galileo's Daughter
2023-01-28 5:49:46 PM  

ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated


Most Oscar-winning films aren't blockbusters.  Compare the box office totals for last year's winner to, say, Avengers: Endgame.
 
jake3988 [OhFark]
2023-01-28 6:16:17 PM  

cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.


The academy is very notorious for nominating movies that didn't make anything at the box office.  It's extremely common.

Avatar 2 and TG:M being nominated is extremely rare.  Hell, the box office totals of those two movies is probably more than the last decade of best picture nominees combined.

But with that said, yeah, nominate the best performance.  Who gives a shiat if it's a white person, a black person, an asian person, or from a movie 2 people saw.  If it's one of the top 5 performances, you nominate them.
 
jake3988 [OhFark]
2023-01-28 6:27:07 PM  

optikeye: ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated

no money = Hollywood accounting.
Star Wars barely covered it cost of production.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
The actor who played Darth Vader still has not received residuals from the 1983 film "Return of the Jedi" because the movie, which ranks 15th in U.S. box office history, still has no technical profits to distribute.


If it's writing about 'residuals', it has zero idea what it's talking about.

Residuals are payed out when bought by a streaming service, when bought on dvd, when bought for a cable channel, etc.

The movie could've made 8 cents at the box office, residuals are always paid out.

The only time 'profits' matter would be if he had a deal to get paid out a percentage of the profits.  And David Prowse a man whose voice and likeness was not used in the movie at all would not have gotten that.  That's reserved to prominent A-list talent like Tom Cruise.

/And no, hollywood does not setup a separate freaking corporation for every movie.  I'm really tired of seeing that garbage lie passed around.  It would serve no purpose anyway.
 
indy_kid
2023-01-28 7:41:21 PM  

jake3988: /And no, hollywood does not setup a separate freaking corporation for every movie.  I'm really tired of seeing that garbage lie passed around.  It would serve no purpose anyway.


It would serve no purpose? Then why would someone set up separate LLCs for separate businesses? Why not put all your eggs in one basket?

A new production company is just an LLC for the movie industry. If you're successful enough, it's better to keep the name for brand recognition ("Ambin Entertainment" and "Lucasfilm" for Kathleen Kennedy, or "View Askew" for Kevin Smith). But if you're making your second or third movie, with limited success, separate production companies insulate the effects of one on the others.

There are 6,258 Movie & Video Production businesses in the US as of 2023, an increase of 0.3% from 2022, but just 5 "major studios".  Only about 800 movies were released in the US in 2022, so what are all these companies doing? I'd wager that most are idle, nothing more than a name on a mailbox. They're shell companies, or cover for money laundering. If you're going to launder money, using "Hollywood math" is the way to go.
 
cretinbob [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-28 8:19:12 PM  

ReaverZ: cretinbob: Was it a good movie? Because that's what it's about, not how much money it made.

no money = no one saw it, so how could it be nominated


That's still not how it works. No one has to. It's not about box office, that's just the public perception.
 
cretinbob [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-28 8:20:45 PM  

austerity101: I'd not heard of this film before this thread. I watched the trailer. It looks like exactly the kind of film that would be nominated for a few Oscars. I don't mean that in a bad way, just that it possesses traits we see in a lot of Oscar winners. This "controversy" is nonsense.


There are rules about campaigning. It's not a controversy if she broke the rules.
 
havocmike
2023-01-28 8:32:17 PM  

tembaarmswide: There isn't an award show in existence that has even a hint of legitimacy.  Every one of them is the equivalent of patting themselves on the back.


What a boring, tired, predictable take.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Total access
Total knowledge
Total Fark

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.