The biggest reason why Gaga didn't get nominated

[StrawberryBlond 14,202]

59 minutes ago, androiduser said:

that's absolutely untrue.... villain roles get awards all the time

What are the most recent ones you can name? I can't remember the last one for best actress since Natalie Portman in Black Swan in 2010, which was one of the few times I'd ever seen a villain role get ultimate award recognition. I don't know how we can have very different recollections for something like this.

58 minutes ago, Anderson123 said:

I'm not sure they care that much about that. Some of the best performances and most memorable ones are of villains. Charlize Theron for Monster, Joaquin Phoenix and Heath Ledger for Joker, Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds (A nazi), Natalie Portman for Black Swan, Anthony Hopkins for Hannibal, Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men, etc. 

Notice how none of them were in the last few years and almost all of them were men. That's another thing - men are far more likely to win awards for villain roles but women are struck by sexism where the worst thing a woman can be onscreen is unlikeable (even if she is playing an unlikeable role) and it can majorly affect her awards chances.

[androiduser 7,438]

58 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

That's another thing - men are far more likely to win awards for villain roles but women are struck by sexism where the worst thing a woman can be onscreen is unlikeable (even if she is playing an unlikeable role) and it can majorly affect her awards chances.

I think you are overthinking it and making wild assumptions. There have been so many nominations for female villain roles that it could almost seem that a villain role is required for a nomination. Bringing sexism into the conversation about a category of all female performers. If it was sexism, it would make more sense to nominate portrayals of  weak submissive female characters. Instead, most actresses portray strong women.

A more realistic reason Gaga didn't get nominated is that there were so many portrayals of real people this year, so the Academy wanted more diversity.

But the most realistic reason is that the members thought the other 5 actresses were better. "The Best" is such a subjective term that people have different ideas of who's the best. Fan opinions are not above industry experts.

[Oyster 2,458]

2 hours ago, Angel Wings said:

She has to stop saying crazy things in her interviews. She comes across as being fake and it always overshadows her work. There’s a reason why most actors hate doing interviews…

I kinda of agree with this. I love her but she has this tendency to get into personas that just feel fake. I feel like Joanne era is a perfect example of this. Like she’s playing a character that she snaps in and out of each era. It’s definitely keeps her interesting though!! To me it’s art. She’s super passionate. But To some I can see why it might come off as inauthentic even if that’s not her intention

[Anderson123 36,061]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

What are the most recent ones you can name? I can't remember the last one for best actress since Natalie Portman in Black Swan in 2010, which was one of the few times I'd ever seen a villain role get ultimate award recognition. I don't know how we can have very different recollections for something like this.

Notice how none of them were in the last few years and almost all of them were men. That's another thing - men are far more likely to win awards for villain roles but women are struck by sexism where the worst thing a woman can be onscreen is unlikeable (even if she is playing an unlikeable role) and it can majorly affect her awards chances.

I think you’re being a little dramatic. 

[LilyLark 9,928]

1 hour ago, androiduser said:

But the most realistic reason is that the members thought the other 5 actresses were better. "The Best" is such a subjective term that people have different ideas of who's the best. Fan opinions are not above industry experts.

Let's be honest though: it's not really about who is better most of the time. There are a lot of factors that go into who gets nominated.... One of the reasons Gaga was in Oscar contention was because Gucci made money...it's not like they reward every film that made money but if a film makes money and has some sort of Oscar pedigree the money helps. Anyway, Ruth Negga had more critical acclaim than any of the supporting actress nominees and was in a highly acclaimed film...and was snubbed.

And I'm not saying this as stan who thinks Gaga was the best out of everyone. I feel like there were 10 worthy performances and couple were better than Gaga and a couple were worse. Anyway, point remains that there a ton of factors that probably played a part. The main one was probably ranked choice voting, which explains how Gaga and Balfe hit every precursor and were part of the top 2 most popular vote getters at BAFTA but missed at the Oscars.

[jeremiahsaint1000 487]

4 hours ago, Angel Wings said:

She has to stop saying crazy things in her interviews. She comes across as being fake and it always overshadows her work. There’s a reason why most actors hate doing interviews…

i totally agree shes always saying omg i was traumatized for doing this role or this role affected my mental health for years to come. i love gaga but shes become way too serious over the last few years, she used to be able to joke around and be clever but everything she says now is so heavy. its making her looks pretentious and overbearing, and this is coming from a day one stan from back in 2008.... 

she was great in the role but her roles in ASIB and HOG, she campaigned so hard and it probably comes off as her bragging or it looks like shes letting it get to her head. i dont really feel this way because i know her but i know some non gaga fans that see it from this perspective. 

they say her roles arent groundbreaking but shes acting like her work is revolutionary. its not, its ****ing amazing work but its not something that hasnt been done before. 

 

for her future work she needs to chill and not campaign like a machine. just let the work speak for itself.

 

[LilyLark 9,928]

8 minutes ago, jeremiahsaint1000 said:

i totally agree shes always saying omg i was traumatized for doing this role or this role affected my mental health for years to come. i love gaga but shes become way too serious over the last few years, she used to be able to joke around and be clever but everything she says now is so heavy. its making her looks pretentious and overbearing, and this is coming from a day one stan from back in 2008.... 

she was great in the role but her roles in ASIB and HOG, she campaigned so hard and it probably comes off as her bragging or it looks like shes letting it get to her head. i dont really feel this way because i know her but i know some non gaga fans that see it from this perspective. 

they say her roles arent groundbreaking but shes acting like her work is revolutionary. its not, its ****ing amazing work but its not something that hasnt been done before. 

 

for her future work she needs to chill and not campaign like a machine. just let the work speak for itself.

 

To be fair, it probably was not a major factor in why she was snubbed (although I'm sure film twitter will push that because they dislike her).

She was nominated for SAG/BAFTA and that was AFTER the nurse comment (which was arguably the most controversial comment)...and BAFTA tends to be even snobbier than the Oscars and less inclined to tolerate eccentricity or "weirdness."  And yes, some of the stuff she says is very out there but it's...around the same... compared to Nicolas Cage and then you have people like Javier Bardem defending Woody Allen...so the double standards are annoying. And a lot of the stuff was taken out of context and/or people overreacted.

[Dennis 8,391]

4 hours ago, CameltoeKween said:

Or maybe people need to stop making creepy compilation videos of her using her pre-planned marketing talking points to make it seem like she’s fake or lying 

Truly cannot believe we’ve reached a point in this woman’s career where her own supposed fans think she’s being too weird and dramatic 

You do realize it's Gagadaily that made that prop drinks clip go viral right?

[LilyLark 9,928]

13 minutes ago, Dennis said:

You do realize it's Gagadaily that made that prop drinks clip go viral right?

True, but to be fair the prop drinks comment was kind of funny. The film world was just at a "look at that b*tch eating crackers" level with her like they were with JLaw circa 2016 or Anne back in the day which is why they reacted badly to it. I sort of get why they thought it was harmless...unlike some of the other clips they tweeted and made viral.

 

[gypsy101 5,428]

she wasn’t good enough is there reason

[Arloway 147]

That does make some sense but it's absolutely not the main reason. The most possible reason is that preferential ballot hurts her. The way she got in all 4 precursors mean that she's not shut out by the industry at all. She's in the contention. But i highly suspect Bafta and SAG don't use preferential ballot like the Academy. She may appear in a lot voters' #3-#5 choice and that's how she got Bafta nom. But when it comes to the Academy, you need a certain amount of top 2 votes to get the nomination

[StrawberryBlond 14,202]

On 2/10/2022 at 5:05 AM, androiduser said:

I think you are overthinking it and making wild assumptions. There have been so many nominations for female villain roles that it could almost seem that a villain role is required for a nomination. Bringing sexism into the conversation about a category of all female performers. If it was sexism, it would make more sense to nominate portrayals of  weak submissive female characters. Instead, most actresses portray strong women.

A more realistic reason Gaga didn't get nominated is that there were so many portrayals of real people this year, so the Academy wanted more diversity.

But the most realistic reason is that the members thought the other 5 actresses were better. "The Best" is such a subjective term that people have different ideas of who's the best. Fan opinions are not above industry experts.

I'm talking about actually winning, though. And yes, you can be sexist in a category of all females, sexism intrudes on everything. And actually, a lot of Oscar nominations are for weak, submissive roles. As I said myself, Gaga needs to get into grieving mother/widow roles, awards shows go crazy for that stuff. So many Oscar roles are stories about long-suffering, put-upon women, usually with lots of crying scenes. You have to show emotional vulnerability in your acting when you're a woman to get nominated, it's just the way it is.

And I never said my opinion was above industry experts. I'm just wondering how they think. But I'd still think Gaga was outstanding even if I weren't a fan.

On 2/10/2022 at 5:47 AM, Anderson123 said:

I think you’re being a little dramatic. 

How was anything I said there dramatic? It was logical. Video essays by film students have been made about the sexism that occurs when women play unlikeable characters. The Take recently did a great video about this very thing. Women are actually directed to be more likeable when acting even when they're playing someone unlikeable. Taylor Swift did a great commentary about this at the tail end of her The Man video. There's a phrase most women know: "The best thing a woman can be after 'pretty' is 'nice.'"

On 2/10/2022 at 3:19 PM, Arloway said:

That does make some sense but it's absolutely not the main reason. The most possible reason is that preferential ballot hurts her. The way she got in all 4 precursors mean that she's not shut out by the industry at all. She's in the contention. But i highly suspect Bafta and SAG don't use preferential ballot like the Academy. She may appear in a lot voters' #3-#5 choice and that's how she got Bafta nom. But when it comes to the Academy, you need a certain amount of top 2 votes to get the nomination

If that is indeed the case, I really hope this makes Oscar voters wake up and realise that if you think someone is good enough, vote for them regardless, never assume a nomination is on lock as, if everyone thought the same way, literally no deserving name would get a nomination. That's how talented people end up in the bottom 2 on reality talent shows - the audience assumes they had enough votes so preferred to vote for a lesser but still talented underdog instead and the result is that the best of the best end up kicked out.

[LilyLark 9,928]

32 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

If that is indeed the case, I really hope this makes Oscar voters wake up and realise that if you think someone is good enough, vote for them regardless, never assume a nomination is on lock as, if everyone thought the same way, literally no deserving name would get a nomination. That's how talented people end up in the bottom 2 on reality talent shows - the audience assumes they had enough votes so preferred to vote for a lesser but still talented underdog instead and the result is that the best of the best end up kicked out.

There probably were a ton of factors, but the main two were likely that Gucci itself wasn't not well liked by AMPAS voters (did not even get a costume nod) and the preferential ballot. People can discuss campaigning or this or that, but Balfe had the same exact precursor awards as Gaga and was in the top 2 popular vote getters at BAFTA and had the benefit in being in a film that had far better reviews than Gucci and which was loved by AMPAS voters...and she also missed out.

The main difference is BAFTA and SAG do not have preferential voting and the Oscars do. So people can have slightly less votes than others, but if they are ranked 1-2...they will get nominated over someone who arguably has slightly more votes but is ranked 4-5.