One Academy voter's brutally honest voting explanations — Page 2

Well, that was fun.

Some people are not entirely convinced with Brave while some industry voting is just operating under 'Pixar makes everything brilliant' state of mind.

And poor William Friedkin had to go on Twitter to say it wasn't his ballot because he shared similar proclamations with the mystery guy (liking Zero Dark Thirty and openly campaigning for Ann Dowd to get a nomination). Considering the man thinks Michael Haneke's fake twitter account (that's another story) was real and tweeted to fake Haneke to praise him should have immediately disqualified him as a suspect. Again, this does read as an old white guy which could mean anybody in the director's branch. Doubt it's Fincher either. He knows how to use a computer, unlike this guy.

I have a 9 year old and he didn't want to see Wreck It Ralph. Now I'm sort of sorry we didn't see it.

---

^

To you, obviously, it wasn't.

I found his candor and mockery of the whole joke of a process extremely refreshing and funny. Witty, too.

He's a little like......

Addison Dewitt.

Having seen all the Animated Feature nominees, Wreck-It Ralph would be the obvious favorite to win for just full-on family entertainment, but my vote would go to ParaNorman for its artistry and intelligence. Brave had some nice animation, but the story was way too simple and thin. Frankenweenie was okay with some fun and interesting moments, but I was bored for much of it. Another Burton parade of style over substance. Pirates was a hoot and witty, but it plateaus pretty early and the plot meanders a bit aimlessly. Still, I'd rank Pirates over Frankenweenie and Brave for sheer wit and intelligence.

---

I've already stated in a couple of threads here on BWW how I don't agree with the PG rating fot 'ParaNorman' because like the PG-13 rated films, 'The Hunger Games' and 'Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith' there is at least one young person who is killed. If it does win on Sunday I still hope that the MPAA will think about its ratings more carefully.

Anyway, this is interesting for what Golden Derby has to say about the race for Best Supporting Actor.






Best Supp. Actor: Predicted Winners

Updated On: 3/24/13 at 12:01 PM

It's that "It's been 32 years since DeNiro's won an oscar" campaign.

---

The funniest thing about this article is the reference to "the Oscar voting helpline" -- the need for such a thing says a hell of a lot about Academy voters.

---

Can somebody help me out? What did Tommy Lee Jones DO at the Golden Globes? I didn't see the broadcast, but I keep encountering these oblique references to some kind of un-couth or inappropriate behavior.

When I ask the Google, I see references to his "scowling" during a Will Ferrel routine. Is that seriously what all this chatter is about?

If scowling at Will Ferrell is a crime, I'm going to have to go underground. The man is an idiot.

---

Addison, at the Globes Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig did a routine where they were introducing lead actress in a comedy and they were pretending to have not seen any of the performances nominated. I personally thought it was hilarious (and I don't usually like Ferrell) but that's beside the point; during the routine the camera cut to Jones and he looked very grumpy. That shot went viral for some reason and the people behind the campaign for the other supporting actors have used it to show that Jones has no sense of humor and to remind the media that Jones makes no attempt to play the game. I agree that it's a huge overreaction that might or might not affect him (it shouldn't), but that's how campaigns work. I've read so many articles lately mentioning how Jones is not kind to the media and whatnot, so I fear that voters may be buying into the rhetoric. He gave a great performance in LINCOLN, a winning performance, and while my favorite is Hoffman and I'd be incredibly happy to see DeNiro take the award for a complex turn in SILVER LININGS, a win from him would be equally exciting.

---

I may have to re-think the timing on when I withdraw from the world and live out the rest of my life in the country among my flowers.

We are constantly told that the "new social media" have created a "reality" in which people need to "brand" themselves and blah blah blah blah blah blah. I don't buy any of it.

Tommy Lee Jones is a really good actor, in my opinion. Why do I need to know or care anything else about the man? And why would people take anything other than the caliber of his nominated performance into account when deciding whether to give him an acting award? You don't want to give him the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award? Or Mister Congeniality? Fine.

No--I'm not so naiive as to be asking these questions in search of a response, but Sheesh--what a lot of hooey.

---

EW profiled him a few issues ago and the reporter made a point to mention as many times as possible that Jones wouldn't laugh at any of his jokes or attempt to make small talk and that he was really short/rude with the waiter. The profile also mentioned how he made Sally Field's life impossible in some movie they had made in the 80s (Can't remember the name), though they did include a quote from Field saying that he had apologized to her and that they became really good friends after. Again, it should have nothing to do with whether they vote for him or not, but unfortunately, that's how some people think. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Waltz win based on the likability factor.

---

Thanks for the insight ray. I actually think Lee Jones deserves it, but I'd be delighted if DeNiro won too.

Stockard, your son will love ParaNorman. It's charming and a lot less scary than Coraline (imo).

And there is one little surprise at the end regarding one of the characters that will make you smile even if it goes over your son's head.

---