Talks about why Gaga's not nominated

[mindintransit 465]

There is really no way to make sense of the best actress nominations. I do know that I've heard enough from individuals claiming to know the thinking of thousands of people in the industry.
Objectively the best actress nominations chosen by the actors branch this year are just confusing. Even with best picture extended to ten nominations none of the best actress nominees are in a movie nominated for best picture, best director, cinematography or editing. None were successful at the box office or had positive audience scores.
(Whatever it means 4/5 of the best actor, best supporting actor and best supporting actress nominees are in movies with multiple nominations).
Gaga has a prestigious BAFTA best actress nomination as well as a SAG nomination (and the wonderful NYFCC award). And millions of people around the world filled theaters because they love her and loved her performance.
Gaga promoted her movie as did the other actors/actresses in the awards conversation. She gave a great performance and truly deserved the nomination. The bottom line is that the decisions by AMPAS branches don't come with explanations. A narrative that she somehow gave too many interviews or talked too much about her passion for acting is ridiculous. It's a narrative that's just meant to hurt Gaga and is actually insulting to AMPAS.
I just know that I'm not getting over it and I still feel sick.

 

[Angel Wings 31]

1 hour ago, Oyster said:

She honestly just takes everything SO seriously that it becomes a drag. 

This.

For once and for all, she needs to let the work speaks for itself, wether it’s music or acting.

 

[rasclautmangos 2,743]

Geez all this extra shyt. Are the Oscar's about recognizing excellent performances or not? Cause if they are then the only valid explanation for her not being nominated is that the voters thought other actors had better performances this time around. That's it. 

I see why so many great actors and musicians are never/rarely recognized at these high profile award shows. Everything is one big game. If you don't play that game perfectly and have people with power in your corner then you get shut out. 

[migamiga 12,101]

if nominations are based off of your interview answers then are your awards really what they say they are?

[Tinnitus15 50,529]

Her PR management is top tier in Hollywood..Her pr team works with other A-list actors/actresses so I don’t think she should changer her team or her way of promoting.i don’t think the reason why she’s snubbed is that.Kinda seeing critics hating her if she was constantly saying she’s new and grateful too..

[Night Vision 3,050]

I personally think that she wasn't nominated because it would have been an unprecedented move for an actress to be nominated twice for her first two leading roles. We underestimate how traditionalist the Academy can still be in lots of ways. And the film itself wasn't enough of a critical smash to gurauntee her the nomination, even though her performance was widely praised.

[androiduser 7,438]

10 hours ago, PartySick said:

Idk about campaigns this and acting culture that. Imo, if an Oscar isn't given purely for how well a role is written and played, then it's worthless as a sign of someone's acting chops

that part is completely subjective... what's "the  best" for you is not "the best" for somebody else.

[Sunny21 608]

Honestly, I don't think Gaga was snubbed... She was ALWAYS ON THE BUBBLE, #6, or #5. Variety was right all along. 🤔

After Kristen was royally snubbed by SAG - and Gaga was nominated, Variety said BOTH of them could miss out. 

I'm no expert, but a SAG nomination is not much of a precursor now that the Academy has gone GLOBAL (as it should)!

SAG is an AMERICAN union for professional actors with 165,000+ members. The Academy is an exclusive club with 9,487 members, 1,336 in the Acting Branch.

There's been a sharp increase in international members in recent years, and SAG-NOMINATED actors in American movies (Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, etc.) were passed over in favor of INTERNATIONAL actors in international movies (Isabelle Huppert, Yalitza Aparicio, Penélope Cruz, etc.)

Meanwhile Kristen, thoroughly snubbed, was campaigning heavily until the VERY last minute. She attended screenings and did IN-PERSON Q&As at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival and the Malibu Film Society during voting weekend! When you're on the bubble, every vote counts.

Even after Gaga was nominated for a BAFTA, Variety said she could STILL miss out (they had her at #5!) because House of Gucci is very divisive, based on their conversations with members of the Academy. It's too lowbrow and commercial for the Academy, but not for SAG, obviously.

HoG is not too lowbrow for BAFTA either... Ridley is British. HoG is nominated for Outstanding British Film.

[PartySick 146,612]

1 hour ago, androiduser said:

that part is completely subjective... what's "the  best" for you is not "the best" for somebody else.

There's a level of objectivity to it though I think.

But yeah, most of it's subjective. How believable is the role? How comfortable are they in it? Is it consistent quality? Is it accurate to the writing? Etc.

But the point is, subjective or not, the award would be given based off their performance. Nothing more, nothing less

[androiduser 7,438]

11 minutes ago, PartySick said:

There's a level of objectivity to it though I think.

But yeah, most of it's subjective. How believable is the role? How comfortable are they in it? Is it consistent quality? Is it accurate to the writing? Etc.

But the point is, subjective or not, the award would be given based off their performance. Nothing more, nothing less

the awards are given based off the performances, they are all great performances, and the winner is the person who got most votes. Campaigning is done to keep reminding voters of a specific performance.

[PartySick 146,612]

1 minute ago, androiduser said:

the awards are given based off the performances, they are all great performances, and the winner is the person who got most votes. Campaigning is done to keep reminding voters of a specific performance.

Except a current theory is Gaga wasn't nominated because they don't like the way she campaigned, which means the award isn't being given on her (or anyone else's) performance alone. In the same way they snubbed Cher 'cause they didn't like her attire or something while campaigning.

I understand why they campaign for these awards but if anything but their performance disqualifies them from getting the award then the award isn't about their performance

[Sunny21 608]

The Oscars are different than the SAG Awards. First, SAG is an AMERICAN actor's union. The Academy is an exclusive club, >20% international members. 

Again, SAG (165,000+ members) vs. the Academy's Acting Branch (1,336 members). 

Second, the Academy's Actors Branch (1,336 members) vote for other actors (5 NOMINEES), but they also get to vote for BEST PICTURE (10 NOMINEES this year)! 

Unlike SAG voters, Oscar voters are notoriously "out of touch." It's all about the "art" of filmmaking, and they tend to nominate little-known or foreign movies like Drive My Car, not blockbusters like Spider-Man: No Way Home. (There are exceptions, e.g., Joker and Black Panther.)

If an actor loves The Power of the Dog (4 Acting nominees), Being The Ricardos (3 Acting nominees), or The Lost Daughter (2 Acting nominees), they're likely to vote for them in the Best Picture category, Best Actor/Actress, and Best Supporting Actor/Actress... TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECT. 

As they did with A Star Is Born (8 Oscar nominations, including 3 Acting noms)!

Unlike SAG voters (the masses) or BAFTA (Ridley is British), Oscar voters (elites) wanted nothing to do with House of Gucci.

It's lowbrow and too commercial, and the fact that it did well at the box office probably made it EVEN LESS "Oscar-worthy." Gaga's on her own this time around. 

[pachinko 10,034]

Maybe one of the other actresses can give up there spot and give it to Gaga? 

[Dojo 19,365]

11 minutes ago, Sunny21 said:

The Oscars are different than the SAG Awards. First, SAG is an AMERICAN actor's union. The Academy is an exclusive club, >20% international members. 

Again, SAG (165,000+ members) vs. the Academy's Acting Branch (1,336 members). 

Second, the Academy's Actors Branch (1,336 members) vote for other actors (5 NOMINEES), but they also get to vote for BEST PICTURE (10 NOMINEES this year)! 

Unlike SAG voters, Oscar voters are notoriously "out of touch." It's all about the "art" of filmmaking, and they tend to nominate little-known or foreign movies like Drive My Car, not blockbusters like Spider-Man: No Way Home. (There are exceptions, e.g., Joker and Black Panther.)

If an actor loves The Power of the Dog (4 Acting nominees), Being The Ricardos (3 Acting nominees), or The Lost Daughter (2 Acting nominees), they're likely to vote for them in the Best Picture category, Best Actor/Actress, and Best Supporting Actor/Actress... TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECT. 

As they did with A Star Is Born (8 Oscar nominations, including 3 Acting noms)!

Unlike SAG voters (the masses) or BAFTA (Ridley is British), Oscar voters (elites) wanted nothing to do with House of Gucci.

It's lowbrow and too commercial, and the fact that it did well at the box office probably made it EVEN LESS "Oscar-worthy." Gaga's on her own this time around. 

you explain it very good thanks. 

but i thought HOG was oscar bait 

[Roseblud Kisses 685]

It was political. The Academy didn’t want a singer to be nominated for her first two main roles. As powerhouse and scene-stealing as her performance was, “veteran” actors that have been in over 20 films “deserved” the nomination more. I think it’s as simple as that. Nothing personal