Golden globe homers and misses

In your opinion, who/what got screwed over and why? What was the surprise solid pick when you assumed the globes would go with safer pick? Any thoughts about how this sets up for academy award winners? 

Comments

  • edited January 7
    For me, i was pretty surprised 1917 won best pic over joker and Irishman, and Taron Egerton (rocketman) beat out leo (once upon...), but my biggest surprise was Russell Crowe beating Jared Harris. Very disappointed. My biggest shock was 1917's Sam Mendes winning over literally any other nominated director. Admittedly, i haven't seen the movie but I find it very hard to believe the saving private Ryan reboot was better directed than joker, Irishman and/or one upon a time OR parasite, which (imo) was unfairly snubbed with a forgotten pic relegation win. 
  • rhcooprhcoop Knoxville, Tn
    Bhorten1 said:
    For me, i was pretty surprised 1917 won best pic over joker and Irishman, and Taron Egerton (rocketman) beat out leo (once upon...), but my biggest surprise was Russell Crowe beating Jared Harris. Very disappointed. My biggest shock was 1917's Sam Mendes winning over literally any other nominated director. Admittedly, i haven't seen the movie but I find it very hard to believe the saving private Ryan reboot was better directed than joker, Irishman and/or one upon a time OR parasite, which (imo) was unfairly snubbed with a forgotten pic relegation win. 
    Yeah, obviously these award shows don't care about the opinions of the peasants, but it just seems odd to me for a movie that has barely been out a week to be nominated for all of these awards.

    Nobody has seen 1917 yet.  I'd like to, but I'd think it should have to wait to be in next year's awards seasons since its so new. 
    snoopferneeBhorten1
  • rhcoop said:
    Bhorten1 said:
    For me, i was pretty surprised 1917 won best pic over joker and Irishman, and Taron Egerton (rocketman) beat out leo (once upon...), but my biggest surprise was Russell Crowe beating Jared Harris. Very disappointed. My biggest shock was 1917's Sam Mendes winning over literally any other nominated director. Admittedly, i haven't seen the movie but I find it very hard to believe the saving private Ryan reboot was better directed than joker, Irishman and/or one upon a time OR parasite, which (imo) was unfairly snubbed with a forgotten pic relegation win. 
    Yeah, obviously these award shows don't care about the opinions of the peasants, but it just seems odd to me for a movie that has barely been out a week to be nominated for all of these awards.

    Nobody has seen 1917 yet.  I'd like to, but I'd think it should have to wait to be in next year's awards seasons since its so new. 
    Couldn't agree more.  They basically gave the movie a limited release which I believe was just NYC and LA before the new year so that it would be eligible for this years Golden Globes.  Which obviously leads to it winning awards when a huge portion of the population haven't even had an opportunity to see it.  Makes no sense at all but I'm excited seeing it. 
    rhcoopsnoopfernee
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    Kaitlyn Dever should have won for Unbelievable. 
    cdrive
  • MurderbearMurderbear Cold Spring, Ky
    1917 is made to be one long continuous shot. My guess is that it will be better directed than Joker, an okay film.
    Hatorianhisdudeness915
  • edited January 8
    Are we really saying that we find it very hard to believe that an epic war movie directed by Sam Mendes and shot by Roger Deakins to look like one continuous take is better than the sad dancing clown movie? A film whose entire identity is lifted almost completely from an actual artist? 

    Man, 2020 is starting off wild.
    ChinaskiDeeMurderbear
  • Dee said:
    Kaitlyn Dever should have won for Unbelievable. 

    Merritt Weaver was also nominated, would've been happy with either winning - but yea Dever was phenomenal, that was a tough role and she made it absolutely compelling.
    Dee
  • The most surprising thing about this year’s Golden Globes was the fact that their nominations seemed to resemble that of a legitimate award show, instead of 78 foreign film critics who just like to get drunk with celebrities once a year. 

    I have a feeling that this awards season is going to be qwhite boring and predictable. All the same people will be nominated for all the same categories down the home stretch.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    @MrX Yeah, Merritt is one of my favourite actors and I would not have been mad if she’d won, but Kaitlyn just blew me away considering the only other thing I’d ever seen her in (at the time) was playing Generic Smart Kid in that shitty Tim Allen sitcom. 
  • Dee said:
    @MrX Yeah, Merritt is one of my favourite actors and I would not have been mad if she’d won, but Kaitlyn just blew me away considering the only other thing I’d ever seen her in (at the time) was playing Generic Smart Kid in that shitty Tim Allen sitcom. 
    Have you watched Justified?
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    @MrX I have not. I didn’t even know she was in it. 
  • Dee said:
    @MrX I have not. I didn’t even know she was in it. 
    I would definitely recommend it; she has a prominent role in the best season (2).
    Dee
  • Teresa from ConcordTeresa from Concord Concord, California
    I liked the Ricky Gervais monologue. Made me laugh. But then again I wasn’t  the butt of his jokes (hello Hollywood) One surprise was the fact that I had no idea what Joaquin was talking about. Get that man another drink! 
    snoopfernee
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited January 8
    1917 is made to be one long continuous shot. My guess is that it will be better directed than Joker, an okay film.
     
    Weirdly I want to see it less now. That sounds... horrible. 
    ken hale
  • edited January 8
    Are we really saying that we find it very hard to believe that an epic war movie directed by Sam Mendes and shot by Roger Deakins to look like one continuous take is better than the sad dancing clown movie? A film whose entire identity is lifted almost completely from an actual artist? 

    Man, 2020 is starting off wild.
    There's no doubt in my mind that 1917 will be a superior film to Joker.  I've been looking forward to 1917 ever since the first trailer was released and the names of Mendez and Deakins were associated with it.

    What I was agreeing with in my past post is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense having a movie nominated for an award when the movie has only been released in 10 theaters at the time of the awards show.  It clearly did the limited release so that it was eligible for this years Golden Globes/Oscars and not next years but it's the first time I remember not even having the opportunity to see a movie before it has won awards.  Plus even if 1917 wasn't in the running Joker would not be anywhere close to the top of my list for best picture.
    rhcoop
  • LordByLordBy Utah
    edited January 8
    It’s not the first time a studio did a limited end of year release to qualify for awards. It’s a marketing strategy, now it’s a Golden Globe winner when it goes wide release which will help the box office, and they may get another bump of it does well in the Oscar race.

    Netflix is doing limited releases to get movies like the Irishman, Marriage Story, Roma, Mudbound, etc. to work the system with movies that seldom see wide theatrical release (they they are broadly available on your TV).

    The rules are arbitrary, but everyone knows them and they are consistent so I don’t blame studios for trying to use them for their benefit.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited January 8
    awookiee said:

    It's the first time I remember not even having the opportunity to see a movie before it has won awards.  

    Where do you live / How old are you 

    ;)

    This is a fact of life, from where I'm standing.
  • rhcooprhcoop Knoxville, Tn
    LordBy said:


    The rules are arbitrary, but everyone knows them and they are consistent so I don’t blame studios for trying to use them for their benefit.
    I understand the game, but its still silly to me when nobody (whether they are interested in it or not) has seen it and its lauded for all these awards.

    Either way, I don't care about most of these awards after the Dark Knight got the shaft over Life is beautiful in the Oscars.  I'm sure the hundreds of people that love that movie were excited, but it literally led to the change of the Oscar nominations policy so I think even the people in charge thought that wasn't the best move. 
  • JaimieT said:
    1917 is made to be one long continuous shot. My guess is that it will be better directed than Joker, an okay film.
     
    Weirdly I want to see it less now. That sounds... horrible. 
    That can't be. But every preview is some dude running, Forrest Gump-style. He maybe stops for a breath. Just one long oner... That does sound like a terrible 2+ hours.
    JaimieTken hale
  • MurderbearMurderbear Cold Spring, Ky
    rkcrawf said:
    JaimieT said:
    1917 is made to be one long continuous shot. My guess is that it will be better directed than Joker, an okay film.
     
    Weirdly I want to see it less now. That sounds... horrible. 
    That can't be. But every preview is some dude running, Forrest Gump-style. He maybe stops for a breath. Just one long oner... That does sound like a terrible 2+ hours.
    Y'all are crazy. That made me want to see it even more just to see how in the hell they could pull it off.
    JaimieT
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    I'll watch it but under the firm initial belief that this is an exaggeration. :D
    Murderbear
  • MurderbearMurderbear Cold Spring, Ky
    Yeah, I'm wondering if it's going to be like Birdman where they kind of fake the one-takedness of it to show a little progression of time. Seems like they would have to given what the kid's mission appears to be from the trailer.
  • JaimieT said:
    awookiee said:

    It's the first time I remember not even having the opportunity to see a movie before it has won awards.  

    Where do you live / How old are you 

    ;)

    This is a fact of life, from where I'm standing.
    I'm 31 but I will openly admit I haven't really gotten into the award shows until very recently so my history in regards to paying attention to these kinds of things doesn't go back very far.  
    JaimieT
  • rkcrawf said:
    JaimieT said:
    1917 is made to be one long continuous shot. My guess is that it will be better directed than Joker, an okay film.
     
    Weirdly I want to see it less now. That sounds... horrible. 
    That can't be. But every preview is some dude running, Forrest Gump-style. He maybe stops for a breath. Just one long oner... That does sound like a terrible 2+ hours.
    Yea, on paper it looks like the kind of weighty Saving Private Ryan war porn movie that I can get down with, but the trailers look a little goofy to me with the locked focus on the main guy. Covering a large stretch of the front over the course of the movie seems like a cool concept, but it kinda feels like after giving the orders Colin Firth is like "oh and take this camera guy with you."
  • edited January 8
    There’s no way it’s actually one take, there are definitely going to be some hidden cuts in there. Any time the screen goes black or an object passes in front of the camera it could conceivably be a cut. I’m just so curious to see whether I think the effort was worth it. The ticking clock motif in all the trailers, while also reminding me very much of Dunkirk, seems to suggest that this is a crucial time-sensitive mission, and choosing to film it this way could really add something to the story, or it could feel very gimmicky. 

    Got my tickets for that tomorrow night and Underwater for Friday.

    And yeah, Portrait of a Lady on Fire is the only other movie eligible for all the awards despite not even opening wide until Valentine’s Day.


  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    ^this.  I'll bet $20 right now it'll be 2 hours of Shepard tone.  I don't know if I can handle that. I've already seen Run Lola Run. 
    Bhorten1
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited January 9
    Yeah, I'm wondering if it's going to be like Birdman where they kind of fake the one-takedness of it to show a little progression of time. Seems like they would have to given what the kid's mission appears to be from the trailer.

    A movie I also can't watch a second time.  :D What a stressful film.

    Well, at least the music will be different.

    The ticking clock motif in all the trailers



    Oh well fuck me.
    hisdudeness915
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    cdrive said:
    ^this.  I'll bet $20 right now it'll be 2 hours of Shepard tone.  I don't know if I can handle that. I've already seen Run Lola Run. 

    This feels like one for the kids.
Sign In or Register to comment.