Anon Oscar Voters Reveal Why They Didn’t Vote For Ariana & Cynthia

[LG2008 6,309]

I mean, their performances were good but I don't think they were better than the ones that actually got nominated so I don't think anyone was actually surprised when none of them were nominated, even more because the second film wasn't as strong as the first one.

The promo tour for both movies was something else, very fun, funny with lots of moments that made people react and talk about but I understand why some feel their relationship was inauthentic and that they were trying too hard. It was kinda ridiculous just like Gaga's HOG promo tour  Gaga gave us iconic moments but the conversation about getting drunk with prop drinks and her being chased by flies sent by Patrizia was on another level 

[JustJames 1,089]

2 hours ago, gagzus said:

No, but they’re admitting they have biases based on outside factors unrelated to the film. It exposes flaws and biases in closed award voting in general.

An example I’ve used before; I’ve seen someone on the GRAMMY committee admit they voted for a different album than the one they thought was the best based on factors unrelated to the music 1) the producer of some of the music was a friend of a friend and 2) their opinion on the artist as a person not as a musician. Kinda furthers that people have actively not voted in these types of awards for deserving people based on their own biases.

(I also think this is why Gaga didn’t get awards for BTW at the GRAMMYs because of her public image)

Okay, but why exactly is “bias in closed voting” a problem in need of solving? Perception of art, music, and film is always going to be subjective. The purpose of these Awards is to literally aggregate the sentiment of people within the industry as to which movies/actors/music/musicians/etc. deserve recognition.

If people’s perception of Wicked was impacted by the promotional tour, they have every right to cast their vote for something they found “better,” which is up to each voter to define themselves. If albums and movies can win because they “had an impact on culture,” or because an artist is seen as “overdue,” then others can be left out for similarly personal and subjective reasons.

This is nothing new nor should it really be seen as controversial; there’s always things like the BBMAs for people who care only about rewarding quantifiable metrics like sales.

[gagzus 23,140]

10 minutes ago, JustJames said:

Okay, but why exactly is “bias in closed voting” a problem in need of solving? Perception of art, music, and film is always going to be subjective. The purpose of these Awards is to literally aggregate the sentiment of people within the industry as to which movies/actors/music/musicians/etc. deserve recognition.

If people’s perception of Wicked was impacted by the promotional tour, they have every right to cast their vote for something they found “better,” which is up to each voter to define themselves. If albums and movies can win because they “had an impact on culture,” or because an artist is seen as “overdue,” then others can be left out for similarly personal and subjective reasons.

This is nothing new nor should it really be seen as controversial; there’s always things like the BBMAs for people who care only about rewarding quantifiable metrics like sales.

I just think if you’re voting for say Best Actress or Best Film you should watch the film and performance and vote off that, not think “oh well this person was weird in their campaign, oh this person has a differing weird view on this, this person isn’t playing in a drama etc” 

had their reasoning being they didn’t like the film or the acting then that would be fair, but they’ve basically admitted that their perception of them had an effect on their vote. and in turn it kinda sets it up as well did they not like the film because they had bias going into the viewing about the actors etc.

i just think when you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of acting accolades, you should be rewarding good acting even yes if it’s to a bad person. (Not saying they are bad btw just I mean in general).

Theres no world in which anybody can tell me that only ONE black person has been worthy to won best actress in the history of the Oscars for example, yet it’s a fact qnd this anon quote just proves that biases are definitely a factor in voting which means they need to make sure that the voting panel is mixed between different types of people because things like unconscious bias like misogyny and racism definitely play a part in votes too.

For example Angela Bassett absolutely should’ve cleared the year she was eligible to have been nominated for WLGTDWI but she didn’t because people even took their biases about Tina into account when voting clearly.

 

Edited January 25 by gagzus

[StrawberryBlond 15,566]

I'm glad that they just came out and said what we were all thinking. It's high time actors were called out for irritating/pompous/obnoxious behaviour in movie campaigns because we, the public, are sick of it. We don't care about you "being in character" or "method acting" when you're not on screen. Just be normal and be yourself and let your acting in the movie shine. The public are tiring of overly dramatic and weepy antics from privileged actors who earn more than we ever could in a lifetime for a few months of work. Ariana and Cynthia's behaviour throughout 2 back-to-back campaigns has been annoying at best, concerning at worst and it never made me want to watch the first film, much less the second one. We saw through these shenanigans and realised they didn't ring true and came across fake, like they were trying to replicate the bond the original Broadway actresses had and this time, it didn't come across genuine.

Audiences displayed their disapproval by not seeing the movie (it made over $233 million less than the last one) and critics also showed their disapproval by giving the film a much more mixed response (66% of critics were positive compared to 88% for the first one). It didn't take a genius to work out that it wasn't going to be a contender. It also didn't help that splitting it into two parts already didn't bode well as the academy famously hates sequels with the exceptions of Lord of the Rings and The Godfather. Unless it's a film of epic proportions, they'll give it a pass. And adding 2 new songs to the second one reeked of desperation to get a best original song nomination as they would've been locked out of the chance considering it's a movie adaption of existing songs. The academy see through these tricks and don't like to give the creators what they so blatantly want.

I will say, however, that a complete lack of nominations was surprising and really not fair considering that it certainly was a contender for technical categories as they were at the same level as the first. And anyone who's seen my best music of the year list will know that I considered The Girl in the Bubble to be the best song of the year. That song was seriously stunning and Ariana would've slayed that live at the ceremony and I imagine that being denied this amazing opportunity was a bitter blow for her especially after it got nominated at the Golden Globes which ordinarily would mean an Oscar nom. With the movie being shut out of the ceremony completely, I also highly doubt that she and Cynthia will be asked to perform at all and after performing last year, they were probably expecting that again and it must have hit them hard to be brought back down to earth.

On 1/25/2026 at 7:07 PM, Creyk said:

Fact: It has only happened ONCE that an actor is nominated for the same role twice. It is extremely rare. Ariana already got her nomination for part 1, which was far better received. She is not a victim here.

I don't know where you got this info from but its happened 6 times. None of them won twice, though. But over the course of 97 years, still a very rare feat. Agreed, it was unlikely there were going to be nominations the second time around especially considering that the sequel was not so much a sequel but one movie shot all at once and deliberately split into two in consecutive years and it was obvious what the director was trying to do here, trying to milk nomination chances for all they were worth. The academy doesn't appreciate that game. That move makes money, but it doesn't garner awards. 

23 hours ago, gagzus said:

I just think if you’re voting for say Best Actress or Best Film you should watch the film and performance and vote off that, not think “oh well this person was weird in their campaign, oh this person has a differing weird view on this, this person isn’t playing in a drama etc” 

had their reasoning being they didn’t like the film or the acting then that would be fair, but they’ve basically admitted that their perception of them had an effect on their vote. and in turn it kinda sets it up as well did they not like the film because they had bias going into the viewing about the actors etc.

i just think when you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of acting accolades, you should be rewarding good acting even yes if it’s to a bad person. (Not saying they are bad btw just I mean in general).

Our perceptions about people off-screen does affect our feelings towards them on-screen, though and I don't think that's a negative bias to have. I don't believe that "bad" people deserve awards. If they've got a big ego now, an award will spur them on to continue and reinforces their behaviour as acceptable. Also, if you see an actor behave in a way that's very fake during the campaign, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth when you see them act, as it's double fakery. It gives the impression that they don't know who they are. I think this should be a wake up call to all future PR experts to really make sure that the cast of a film is media trained and briefed on keeping it real if they want an audience to show up because I know Wicked's cast antics put a lot of people off seeing it. Like it or not, this is a natural reaction for humans to have and we just have to accept that. You never get a second chance to make a first impression, as they say. If someone had sat Ariana and Cynthia down and said: "Look, I know you're passionate about acting and you're emotional theatre kids but can you keep a lid on the dramatics for the sake of this campaign as its turning audiences and critics off and may harm your future career chances" then that nonsense could've been knocked on the head and things could've turned out differently.