Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Movies MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | Movies Page of 2 Next >>
Topic: Golden Globes Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 121600
Posted: 06 January 2020 at 1:00pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

One question: how the heck was Brad Pitt a SUPPORTING actor in ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4888
Posted: 06 January 2020 at 1:54pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

Lol.

That is funny -- obviously the category they thought they could win in -- and I wonder if the fact that Pitt's character "supported" DiCaprio's character as a job helped this bizarre choice go over?

"Pitt was great in that supporting role, you believed he really would do anything for his boss..."
Back to Top profile | search
 
Eric Sofer
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 31 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 4022
Posted: 06 January 2020 at 2:39pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Because that was the category where they could legitimately give him an award. Obviously, the best actor was already assigned to someone else.

I trust these guys assigning awards as far as I trust sports referees.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13380
Posted: 06 January 2020 at 3:30pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

I wonder if the fact that Pitt's character "supported" DiCaprio's character
as a job helped this bizarre choice go over?

——

“Bizarre”? The studio was trying to avoid splitting the vote by having
DiCaprio and Pitt in the same category. It’s a big cheat, but it’s a
common strategy. So much so that it’s considered unusual that both
Matt Damon and Christian Bale are being submitted for Best Actor for
FORD V FERRARI.

I’m still not over Jamie Foxx getting Best Supporting Actor for
COLLATERAL. (He was nominated for Best Actor for RAY and couldn’t
be in the category twice.) Almost the entire movie was from the POV of
his character!
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3472
Posted: 06 January 2020 at 3:59pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

I remember there was a bit of a flap back in the day when Sam Jackson and John Travolta were both nominated for Oscars for Pulp Fiction and they put one of the two in the 'supporting' category by virtue of having two or three minutes less screen time.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1625
Posted: 08 January 2020 at 5:12pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Already answered, but I'll chime in that this is also like the way The Martian was controversially nominated in the comedy category (and subsequently caused a change in the rules).

It's all a giant wank, if you'll excuse the blunt expression. The Golden Globes is basically a marketing exercise to dole out the right award to the right person/people, and be seen to be doing so, reinforcing the studios' investments.

This is why Ricky Gervais' monologue is the only thing I watch it for, and why it was even more popular this year than ever. People are all too aware of the Globes' purpose now to watch it as a serious awards show.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Rodrigo castellanos
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 03 July 2012
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 608
Posted: 10 January 2020 at 12:46am | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Pitt's character has less screen time than Di Caprio's and it would be pretty dumb for the studio to put them in the same category. Also, best actor was an almost certain win for Phoenix so they would've ended probably with nada. 

What I did find kinda funny is the movie itself being in the "Musical or Comedy" category of which it is neither. 1917 ended up winning in Best Picture Drama, OUATIH could have won. 

It's all about strategy, award-winning is kinda like a sport now. I find it very funny how people do Oscar predictions games with their friends and participate in polls and the such without having seen most of the films themselves. By hype alone and studying how previous award shows went down you could take a pretty accurate guess.

On previous cases, THE MARTIAN being in the "Musical or Comedy" category was ridiculous but, unlike OUATIH, the film had no shot of winning in the Drama category so it was probably a smart decision.

Jamie Foxx in the supporting actor category is probably the most infamous of these moves as he was, without a doubt, the lead character and delivered a brilliant performance.

Travolta and SLJ I don't find that egregious. SLJ had much less screen time than Travolta, not three or four minutes. Remember, the whole Mia Wallace part is with Travolta alone, and also the showdown with Butch. SLJ has no scenes without Travolta along, if I'm not misremembering.

I like Gervais generally and some of his jokes landed (especially the ones involving Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein) but I'm finding his Golden Globes "character" a bit tired and forced now. Still, he made a good point about actors being in no position to get preachy and lecture-y as they work with some of the most harmful and unethical people and corporations in the world and have a very distorted lens from which to analyze the world's problems. Of course, they still did it. They just can't resist, can they?




Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 121600
Posted: 10 January 2020 at 8:43am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Pitt's character has less screen time than Di Caprio's…

••

Sure about that? He has some long solo scenes, and the rest of the time he's on screen at the same time as DiCaprio.

Free lifetime membership in the JBF to anyone who wants to take a stopwatch to it.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Rodrigo castellanos
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 03 July 2012
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 608
Posted: 10 January 2020 at 12:32pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Heh, not that sure.

Pitt has the Manson family scene, but Di Caprio's whole western shoot is longer by my impression.

An argument could be made that is Di Caprio's circumstances that carry the plot and the Pitt character is "along for the ride".

But, obviously it's just award show strategy. They're both leads, it would've made sense to nominate Robbie as a supporting actress though.

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 121600
Posted: 10 January 2020 at 12:54pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

Except that Robbie occupies time and space but offers no “support”. As I’ve noted, the whole Sharon Tate subplot could be lifted out of the movie and nothing would be missed.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 12734
Posted: 10 January 2020 at 1:50pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

As I’ve noted, the whole Sharon Tate subplot could be lifted out of the movie and nothing would be missed.
--------------------------
I disagree with this -- the sense of dread/threat surrounding the 'hippies' would be far less if there was no Sharon Tate subplot.

As for the nomination for Brad in the supporting role -- you're right that no one would blink if Pitt had been nominated along with DiCaprio as a lead. Pitt is like Sundance to DiCaprio's Butch. I'd say they were co-leads.

No doubt Michael Roberts is right that the category would be down to how the studio submitted the film to the HFPA [the rules are: 'the studio or publicist submitting a motion picture or television program initially determines the award categories for which it is entered (e.g. drama v. musical/comedy or lead v. supporting)]. It is just one of those occasional quirks, such as Anthony Hopkins winning the best actor Oscar for Silence of the Lambs, or Juliette Binoche winning the best supporting actress Oscar for The English Patient.


Edited by Peter Martin on 10 January 2020 at 1:51pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 121600
Posted: 10 January 2020 at 2:14pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

As I’ve noted, the whole Sharon Tate subplot could be lifted out of the movie and nothing would be missed.

--------------------------

I disagree with this -- the sense of dread/threat surrounding the 'hippies' would be far less if there was no Sharon Tate subplot.

••

Those "hippies" could be easily recast in some other menacing form, as could the attack at the end.

Back to Top profile | search
 

Page of 2 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE