Gaga no longer expected to get Oscar nomination (Variety)

[connorfilm 7,295]

I'd be VERY shocked if Rachel gets a nomination, especially over Gaga. We shall see. It is a tight race this year.

[Harry Kat 10,022]

She will get a nomination! Bookmark me 

[littlepotter 74,941]

I'm sure it will mean a lot to her if Rachel made it

[Franch Toast 26,778]

I thought Kidman ruined Being the Ricardos, so I would prefer Gaga over her. 

Zegler did well in West Side Story, but the character of Maria isn't that meaty –– in terms of actresses, Anita's role offers a lot more. 

Chastain was brilliant in The Eyes of Tammy Faye. I thought Kristen did fine in Spencer, but for me, Chastain's performance is the best of the bunch (I haven't seen Colman's film yet, so no comment there), even over Gaga's. 

[MelbHawker 6,583]

I hope she earns a nomination but I don’t think she will. If she does, it’d be deserved because she committed herself to the role & gave it her all but I think the Academy will nominate the women Variety now has as the favorites. I have a feeling Coleman or Chastain will get it this year. 

[Hebi 13,928]

I think either Olivia Colman or Jessica Chastain is going to win 

[Hebi 13,928]

1 minute ago, MelbHawker said:

I have a feeling Coleman or Chastain will get it this year.

 

Just now, Hebi said:

I think either Olivia Colman or Jessica Chastain is going to win 

Taste detected

[AVeryGagaHolyDick 25,140]

10 minutes ago, *** Like Pepsi said:

Her performance is not Oscar worthy. I liked the movie and she played her role well but she's not an Oscar-worthy actress in any way. The only reason she would get a nomination is because she is Lady Gaga. 

Neither is Kristen. I like Kristen as a person and some of her movies so I'm not trying to **** on her but she is a mediocre actress and all she was doing in Spencer is impersonating Diana, nothing more. Neither the movie nor her performance are anywhere near Oscar-worthy. 

The Oscars (and all the other award shows) are not based on merit anymore. It's so pathetic.

 

What makes you think that?

I'm not a movie person (yet), I have no idea what “great acting” is (I can recognize a terrible actor of course, but often, I can't see the difference between what critics call “great” and “mediocre”)

[HiddenWeirdo 4,277]

13 minutes ago, *** Like Pepsi said:

Her performance is not Oscar worthy. I liked the movie and she played her role well but she's not an Oscar-worthy actress in any way. The only reason she would get a nomination is because she is Lady Gaga. 

Neither is Kristen. I like Kristen as a person and some of her movies so I'm not trying to **** on her but she is a mediocre actress and all she was doing in Spencer is impersonating Diana, nothing more. Neither the movie nor her performance are anywhere near Oscar-worthy. 

The Oscars (and all the other award shows) are not based on merit anymore. It's so pathetic.

 

I find answers like yours interesting. I see that a lot here and I'm trying to understand how people like you see themselves. What level of importance do you give yourself that you think you can evaluate an acting performance like that? 

[Dojo 19,365]

33 minutes ago, Nemo said:

Kidman and Colman already have Oscars, give someone else a chance.

this is nawt how it works

we all saw this coming sistrens

i just thought thee academy would be smart enough to nominate her for ratings

[djBuffoon 12,115]

As heartbreaking as it would be for Gaga and all of the hard work she put into her performance, I don't think she deserves a nomination for House of Gucci. Not this year.

Jessica Chastain, The Eyes of Tammy Faye

Morfydd Clark, Saint Maud

Olivia Colman, The Lost Daughter

Penelope Cruz, Parallel Mothers

Isabelle Fuhrmann, The Novice

Alana Haim, Licorice Pizza

Emilia Jones, CODA

Nicole Kidman, Being the Ricardos

Renate Reinsve, The Worst Person in the World

Agathe Rouselle, Titane

Kristen Stewart, Spencer

Rachel Zegler, West Side Story

Any five of these ladies would be more worthy tbh.

 

Edited to add: Interesting that people are laugh-reacting this post without actually refuting it. Have you seen at least five of these performances? If not, then you aren't responding from an educated perspective. There are many other films released last year than just HoG, give them a watch.

[nATAH 48,577]

[Chlorine 47,976]

4 minutes ago, HiddenWeirdo said:

I find answers like yours interesting. I see that a lot here and I'm trying to understand how people like you see themselves. What level of importance do you give yourself that you think you can evaluate an acting performance like that? 

Are you asking the members who think she deserves an Oscar for this performance what level of importance they give themselves? 

[Pussy Like Pepsi 238]

29 minutes ago, Dead body said:

What makes you think that?

I'm not a movie person (yet), I have no idea what “great acting” is (I can recognize a terrible actor of course, but often, I can't see the difference between what critics call “great” and “mediocre”)

Great acting is when you totally believe that the person you are watching is really going through what you see on screen, bad acting is when you can tell they are just acting. This is hard to put into words but it's just something you recognize because you know how emotions look in real life, you know how people speak, act and react in real life and you can pick up on subtle nuances in how people act in movies and know whether it is believable or not. It's everything, the delivery of lines, the body language, the facial expressions, the tone of voice, everything. In Gaga's case, she is fine in movies where she has to play herself like in 'A Star is Born', but she is clearly not a world class actress nor a professional actress. She's pretty amateur. Her performance was fine but the Oscars are supposed to be the most prestigious acting award and she would never get a nomination for her performance if she was just some random actress starting out. 

As for Kristen, all she does in that Spencer movie is try to emulate Diana's body language, facial expressions, accent, way of speaking, while being dressed like her. She did not for one moment make me think she really was Diana in that film, there was no actual emotion behind any of what she was doing, she was just focusing on having her speech and mannerisms look like Diana (impersonating her) and that's not acting, that's just an impersonation. Anyone could've done what she was doing in that movie. The only reason she is hyped to get a nomination is because 1, the movie is about Diana 2, she is Kristen Stewart. If this was some non-hyped film with a no name actress it would never be nominated for an Oscar. Neither the movie nor her performance deserve to be named the Best of the year. She was also totally miscast in this role, she looks like a 22 year old kid, not like a 30+ woman, Diana looked very womanly at that age and Kristen looks way younger. I look at that movie and think how does this young girl have those two sons? Just because she's skinny and has similar Anglo features doesn't mean she should've been cast as her, they have extremely different auras and Kristen isn't a good enough actress to pull off anyone's aura aside from her own. Diana was very tradtionally feminine and had a motherly presence while Kristen is very boyish. 



 

[Pussy Like Pepsi 238]

11 minutes ago, HiddenWeirdo said:

I find answers like yours interesting. I see that a lot here and I'm trying to understand how people like you see themselves. What level of importance do you give yourself that you think you can evaluate an acting performance like that? 

A lot of importance, darling. You'll just have to deal with it.