|
Post by Kristin on Feb 20, 2014 11:08:13 GMT -5
You're all shooting the messenger, even if that messenger has a history of snide remarks where Hugh is concerned. Musto wasn't at the screening, an Academy member was, and he/she is the one saying Hugh ignored them, not that he ignored Musto.
|
|
|
Post by SueFB on Feb 20, 2014 11:11:09 GMT -5
Well, ostensibly it wasn't Musto himself who experienced the perceived slight but this anonymous Academy member. Regardless, whoever it was is likely a friend of Musto's and/or shares his agenda.
(Kristin beat me to the clarification - I'm still irritated at Musto for publishing it, but god only knows who/what happened to cause the hissy fit by Mr/Ms Anonymous.)
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Feb 20, 2014 11:21:53 GMT -5
Well, ostensibly it wasn't Musto himself who experienced the perceived slight but this anonymous Academy member. Regardless, whoever it was is likely a friend of Musto's and/or shares his agenda. (Kristin beat me to the clarification - I'm still irritated at Musto for publishing it, but god only knows who/what happened to cause the hissy fit by Mr/Ms Anonymous.) Well, whomever that person is, they shouldn't be holding on to some stupid slight by Hugh. Get the fuck over it. Boo hoo, Hugh Jackman, who I wasn't going to vote for in the first place, didn't say hello to me. Hugh's never said hello to me, but I don't take it personally. Ha ha. (Okay, that's not true. He has said hello to me. I'm just saying.) We've heard too many stories about how he does take the time to schmooze with EVERYONE and their dogs, so this is just silly and one person's experience. It means nothing and not worth getting worked up over.
|
|
|
Post by emtee on Feb 20, 2014 11:49:28 GMT -5
You're all shooting the messenger, even if that messenger has a history of snide remarks where Hugh is concerned. Musto wasn't at the screening, an Academy member was, and he/she is the one saying Hugh ignored them, not that he ignored Musto. Oh, didn't read the source article...
|
|
|
Post by SueFB on Feb 20, 2014 12:23:04 GMT -5
You're all shooting the messenger, even if that messenger has a history of snide remarks where Hugh is concerned. Musto wasn't at the screening, an Academy member was, and he/she is the one saying Hugh ignored them, not that he ignored Musto. Oh, didn't read the source article... Yeah, my bad for not including the introductory explanation in the copy-n-paste. I didn't even notice the article writer, just saw red when I first read it. I KNOW I shouldn't get worked up over this sort of petty bullshit, but I just can't help it. As Jean pointed out, the flat-chested comment about Amy Adams was equally mean-spirited. Somebody just needs to get over themselves. (but LOL, I totally agreed with their opinions re Judi Dench - should win but won't - and McConaughey - shouldn't win but will).
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Feb 20, 2014 12:53:44 GMT -5
Another case of my reading too quickly and/or shooting (the messenger) from the hip. Still, I get the feeling he's not entirely blameless.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 20, 2014 13:23:50 GMT -5
Sorry, that some thought it was Musto who attended the (supposed) screening, but I've only seen that it's by him and that is suspicious enough for me. Maybe he even made this piece up, who knows? Whatever, it was a celebration for him to write this crap and I don't think either he is blameless..
Maybe Hugh really ignored this person, whoever it is (I think it might be one of these old men in the Academy), for a good reason. Anyhow, I have the feeling that this person just wants to get attention and wants to buck the trend. Just look his votes .... even if I agree with some but still .... And the comment about Amy is mean-spirited and kind of sexist.
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Feb 21, 2014 20:55:08 GMT -5
Looks like we're going to have to get used to McConaughey as this year's Best Actor Oscar winner, according to the analysis done by Entertainment Weekly. The new issue gave McC 30 percent of the vote, with DeCaprio as his closers rival coming in at 24 percent. EW also asked five unnamed Academy members from various areas of the film industry for whom they will vote, and all said they were voting for McC. I know the sampling is statistically insignificant, but the results will, I think, be affirmed come Oscar night. Who'd have thought McC would hold an Oscar before DeCaprio?
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Feb 21, 2014 21:34:17 GMT -5
Looks like we're going to have to get used to McConaughey as this year's Best Actor Oscar winner, according to the analysis done by Entertainment Weekly. The new issue gave McC 30 percent of the vote, with DeCaprio as his closers rival coming in at 24 percent. EW also asked five unnamed Academy members from various areas of the film industry for whom they will vote, and all said they were voting for McC. I know the sampling is statistically insignificant, but the results will, I think, be affirmed come Oscar night. Who'd have thought McC would hold an Oscar before DeCaprio? Why couldn't "Lincoln" come out this year??? I can't imagine "Oscar winner Matthew McC....."
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Feb 21, 2014 21:52:34 GMT -5
Which begs another interesting question: If LES MIZ had been released this year, would Hugh have won out over McC? If Hugh had to lose, I'm glad it was against DDL.
|
|
|
Post by klenotka on Feb 22, 2014 4:52:09 GMT -5
I am not a fan of DiCaprio but I want him to win this one because he was really good. I read some silly article about DiCaprio "never changing", which may be true because he basically looks the same Titanic...but it wasn´t meant like that. They suggested he should "shave his head" or "lose a weight". Is that what the acting to these days? You have to forget about acting and just lose weight to get an Oscar?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 22, 2014 8:21:47 GMT -5
McC should win an Oscar for his "I'm now a serious actor ... I live for my art ... bla bla... " role that he plays now everywhere. I'm so tired of the over-hype about him. He was in Germany as well and I've seen some interviews with him and everytime I've thought that he plays a role for the press and public. In these interviews he was so full of himself. He told how he knew that the script is great, that nobody else but him knew what great film this will be, how he only lives for his art, how he lost weight, how serious he takes his acting job bla bla ... But while he spoke about his fight for this film, he looked and sounded so unenthusiastic, as if he has memorized the sentences, as if he plays a role. I haven't seen his movie, but I have seen some parts of it, and at least in these parts he looks like in all his other movies only 20 kilos lighter and with a beard.
Re DiCaprio, how must his fans feel now, especially if Leo really loses against McC? I'm really glad now, that Hugh isn't nominated this year and that Les Mis was last year, because I highly doubt that he had a chance against McC's manipulative aggressive campaign!
|
|
|
Post by scrffy78 on Feb 22, 2014 10:21:14 GMT -5
This is kind of related, I think. I wasn't able to hear the whole story, but a couple days ago NPR did a piece on how, in general, we are biased towards artists who exhibit eccentricity. The survey was of all kinds of artists and the general public. If an artist is eccentric, odd, or weird in some way, we tend to view them as more "serious," and worthy of acclaim than an artist who conducts themselves within the range of "normal" or conventional. They gave Vincent Van Gogh as an example. When an actor goes to extreme lengths for a role--gaining or losing weight, staying in character even while not filming, spending exorbitant amounts of time researching relevant and tenuously relevant subjects, for example--we tend to regard such potential destructiveness as commitment to their art or craft.
The same goes for mental illness and substance abuse. A lot of people think that Edgar Allen Poe or Jimi Hendrix would not have been as great or inspired without the influence of depression/bipolar/addiction (Poe) or drug addiction (Hendrix). Truth is, however, that mental illness and substance addiction reduce the amount of time and energy one can devote to anything else. Yes, perhaps Poe might not have had as many opium nightmares to inspire his writing had he access to modern medical treatment, but he also would have lived a longer life and had more mental energy to create, as opposed to being caught up in his depression and opium addiction.
All this rambling is to say that although I dislike the attention unhealthy extremes receive, I understand why. I also think a little part of why the film critic blogosphere (see: Sasha Stone) don't take Hugh as seriously as an actor/artist is because he is so well-adjusted, friendly, and healthy-looking. Another part is the bias against action, comedy, musicals, and science fiction films as not being "serious," and with a good chunk of Hugh's filmography coming from X-Men, they don't see him as the well- trained professional that we do.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Feb 22, 2014 10:30:29 GMT -5
All this rambling is to say that although I dislike the attention unhealthy extremes receive, I understand why. I also think a little part of why the film critic blogosphere (see: Sasha Stone) don't take Hugh as seriously as an actor/artist is because he is so well-adjusted, friendly, and healthy-looking. Another part is the bias against action, comedy, musicals, and science fiction films as not being "serious," and with a good chunk of Hugh's filmography coming from X-Men, they don't see him as the well- trained professional that we do. I think that nails it.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 22, 2014 12:34:22 GMT -5
What annoys me so, is that McC made so many shitty movies in the last decade, and suddenly after a few serious roles he is treated as the greatest character actor of all time by everybody. Everything what he does, is just brilliant now. If you read some of the articles, you think the author org*sms. Seriously, I'm waiting for an article, that claims that he can walk over water or can transform water into wine. The hype is slowly getting ridiculous imo. And I still wonder why he suddenly after all those crappy movies he even got these roles. There are so many other actors who also try to get serious and better roles. Hugh's movies may have not always been the best ones (and yes, many are action movies, but not all), but they are still a lot of better and his roles were more versatile than all this crap that McC made in the last ten years. Hugh's serious movies don't seem enough to convince people of his talent and I have the feeling that even now he still doesn't get offered the real good and challenging roles, but McC only needed a few movies to make everybody believe that he is one of the most versatile actors and a great character actor, the greatest of all, better than Leo and all the others. That's it, what annoys me so much, and not only in regards to Hugh but also to other actors who are more versatile than McC imo. I've already said it before, McC plays the role of his lifetime right now by pretending what a serious actor, artist ... he is and everybody seems to believe him. Maybe Hugh should stop smiling and charming and joking and should instead also play the role of a very serious actor for the public and press, and should talk everywhere about his seriousness for the art, about the risks he takes, about his research for his roles ... as McC is now doing everywhere. And he should play a role for that he has to clearly visible "suffer" and change. But is that really the only way to get recognition? If so, then, honestly, I'd rather see him to continue to be charming and smiling and be healthy, and to play roles in some blockbusters, and for all I care to make some musicals too. lol
|
|
|
Post by klenotka on Feb 22, 2014 13:09:30 GMT -5
I agree with you about Hugh, jean. He does what makes him happy and even when a movie like, for example, Real Steel is not a high art as...Citizen Kane, it is a good (really, really good), solid, entertaining movie. He was good in it, enjoyed making it and everybody loved worked with him because he enjoyed it and shared it with others. And people seemed to like it. To entertain people, to be able to reach them even through a screen, is a very difficult thing to do, imo and not every actor has that. Yes,I am a little frustrated with the lack of confirmed projects right now, but it doesn´t mean I can decide what is good for him because I am just a fan. He has his priorities, principles, he loves his family, which always comes first and he LOVES what he does. When some actors obviously give up on their career because they feel they are not "challanged" enough, it is sad. So as long as Hugh is happy and makes people happy, then it´s fine
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Feb 22, 2014 16:28:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Feb 23, 2014 7:10:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SueFB on Feb 23, 2014 8:21:45 GMT -5
I wonder if the Oscar telecast ratings will suffer as a result. I have to think so. And did "Argo" really lead the way last year, or are they just mentioning it because it won Best Picture. I thought both Les Mis and Django outperformed it at the box office.
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Feb 23, 2014 8:28:48 GMT -5
I wonder if the Oscar telecast ratings will suffer as a result. I have to think so. And did "Argo" really lead the way last year, or are they just mentioning it because it won Best Picture. I thought both Les Mis and Django outperformed it at the box office. I think it was written that way just because it won: Argo: Domestic: $136,025,503 58.5% + Foreign: $96,300,000 41.5% = Worldwide: $232,325,503 Les Mis: Domestic: $148,809,770 33.7% + Foreign: $293,000,000 66.3% = Worldwide: $441,809,770 Django: Domestic: $162,805,434 38.3% + Foreign: $262,562,804 61.7% = Worldwide: $425,368,238
|
|