directorbear:

ofallonmochub:

photocub69:

riddlemetom:

Academy Awards logic

The real crime was the loss of the Deathly Hallows on the other technical awards they were up for. You can argue make up, score and even acting. But to do what they did visually… Well It was quite stunning and they should have gotten something from that alone 

Couldn’t agree more

This graphic is a bit of a joke. Ralph Finnes Voldemort “make up” was done mostly digitally. They were still robbed, but this was the silliest example you could have used.

^^This.
There’s much more that HP could have won (and been nominated) for, but I’ve seen this image pop up on my dash more than any other complaints, and considering it’s popularity…it’s the weakest one, for the reasons listed above.  Digital effects are a completely different category from make-up, which is predominately based on practical…well…make-up.  
The point is valid, but if this example is the one most oft-used, then it doesn’t look good.  The Academy isn’t going to pay any attention to complaints if it just comes off as angry, bitter fans.  Make an educated argument.  Throwing out stuff like this just makes the pretentious old guys who run things feel even more justified, in the off-chance that it gets around.  

directorbear:

ofallonmochub:

photocub69:

riddlemetom:

Academy Awards logic

The real crime was the loss of the Deathly Hallows on the other technical awards they were up for. You can argue make up, score and even acting. But to do what they did visually… Well It was quite stunning and they should have gotten something from that alone 

Couldn’t agree more

This graphic is a bit of a joke. Ralph Finnes Voldemort “make up” was done mostly digitally.
They were still robbed, but this was the silliest example you could have used.

^^This.

There’s much more that HP could have won (and been nominated) for, but I’ve seen this image pop up on my dash more than any other complaints, and considering it’s popularity…it’s the weakest one, for the reasons listed above.  Digital effects are a completely different category from make-up, which is predominately based on practical…well…make-up.  

The point is valid, but if this example is the one most oft-used, then it doesn’t look good.  The Academy isn’t going to pay any attention to complaints if it just comes off as angry, bitter fans.  Make an educated argument.  Throwing out stuff like this just makes the pretentious old guys who run things feel even more justified, in the off-chance that it gets around.  

Click the link for the full article.  Here’s the gist:

"Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin came out on stage to present the Oscars for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Original Screenplay. 

Viewers saw the two men walk out onto stage where they engaged in an apparently impromptu dance, though viewers only saw a flash of that before the camera jumped to an extended shot of Penelope Cruz.”

The reason for the extended cut of Bardem’s wife?  Brolin and Bardem kissed quickly.  No big deal, totally for the sake of fun and shock (two of the reasons people probably watch the Oscars in the first place.)  ABC decided this was not fit to show on the telecast so they avoided it.  Thus far there has been no comment from ABC.

Also interesting to note is that both Brolin or Bardem are straight, so even if someone wanted to plead homophobia…there wasn’t anything homosexual about it.  Seriously, what was ABC’s reasoning behind pulling this?