MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride

A Late (But BREAKING) Globes BYOB

31 Responses to “A Late (But BREAKING) Globes BYOB”

  1. Part IV says:

    Good ol’ IP Bob jumping on the bandwagon with a meaningless gesture.

  2. Hcat says:

    Funny that just a few days ago we were talking about Duane Johnson’s political future, I had to think he saw that speech and saw any immediate hope he had slip away. She would have to get over the not another celebrity hump (along with the inherent sexism and racism). But this morning I was surprised by how many very reasonable people who could easily be brought on board. But if every Billionare is immediately considered, she can hold her own against any of them.

  3. iothereturned says:

    Oprah has a couple of things going for her:

    1) She would inspire black women, and black women drive democratic voting now. Same with other minority women.

    2) Some of the white women who sold out Hillary. May have a harder time selling out Oprah.

    3) She’s Oprah. Anything anyone throws at her is diminished, because she’s Oprah. She is beloved, and it’s hard to tarnish her. People have tried, and she has even hurt her own brand. Doesn’t matter. She’s still Oprah.

    4) I’ve felt this way for a while: if orange makes it to 2020, then the only way to guarantee you get excitement and turnout, that could possibly thwart any outside influence? A woman of color first, then a man of color second. Tim Kaine, like in 2016, isn’t inspiring anyone who needs to be inspired to vote. If it’s not Oprah, then it’s Kamala Harris. If neither? The Rock needs to run. If this is truly a popularity contest, then the Democrats need to go all out.

  4. Nick says:

    2 things:

    1. many people clearly don’t get that there’s a macguffin in 3 billboards. these people are fucking idiots.
    2. same people getting pissed off at folks calling out last jedi’s bullshit are claiming 3 billboards is a bad movie. these people are also fucking hypocritical idiots.

  5. Spacesheik says:

    “Good ol’ IP Bob jumping on the bandwagon with a meaningless gesture.”

    Iger needs to spend more time appeasing Star Wars fans (LAST JEDI backlash) than jumping on Oprah’s bandwagon.

  6. Stella's Boy says:

    Good conversation starter Nick. Thanks for sharing.

  7. Hcat says:

    I’m a little confused, don’t you guys love IP? Aren’t you the ones that went orgasmic at the thought of three Marvels and a Star Wars on an annual basis? You seem to be deriding him for giving you what you want.

  8. Greg says:

    You know Oprah, if my yawn was any bigger they’d have to assign it a hurricane name. (Thank you Dennis Miller)

  9. Stella's Boy says:

    Is that from when Miller was funny or now? Not that I want Oprah to run.

    What did people think of The Shape of Water? Just saw it this morning. Not sure how I feel about it. It’s beautifully shot, effects are outstanding, the score is wonderful, and the cast is good. But I expected to feel more. I wasn’t as involved or moved as I expected to be. Maybe I’m getting more/too cynical.

  10. Spassky says:

    They really went from 0-60 on the whole “im in love with a fishman” thing very quickly, but the thing is so full of great design, acting, and heart that i was charmed enough to forget. Wish Good Time, Zama, and Phantom Thread were hoovering up awards but wtf can you do in a see of virtue signaling and toeing the line? Its a nice compromise and while GDT speech the other night was not very of the moment, he really is so deserving and seemingly heartfelt i cant help but feel good about it.

  11. Stella's Boy says:

    Yes it does feel awfully quick Spassky. Maybe that’s why I didn’t feel much emotional impact. But the design and acting are pretty spectacular.

  12. Triple Option says:

    What was it, a week or two ago, I was questioning why Dafne Keen wasn’t be pushed for her excellent work in Logan and then late last week I see this in facebook.
    (excuse the sizing, it wasn’t so big where I saw it)

    Not just some targeting ad that comes from one of those creepy algorithms that web browsers use that track what you had for breakfast by the odor it picks up off your monitor to decide what product from amazon now they can stick in a banner ad but an actual post promoting her performance. Good on Fox. I think they had created it a few months ago but I was happy to see them throw it out there during crunch time. There was some push back by commentors saying all she did was scream or was too silent but plenty of others recognizing the degree of difficulty for her spin on the ice. Oh yeah, a lot of protests saying she was lead actress, not a supporting. On the one hand it does seem a bit convenient that a studio or prod co can submit someone or something wherever it thinks it has the best shot to win and not where it would otherwise be defined. OTOH, it does seem more reasonable for the ones who made the film to self define what it is.

    As for the Globes themselves, I have serious doubts that more than 40% of the more highly visible category winners will get statues at the Academy Awards. Oldman would be my lock, the rest, idk.

  13. YancySkancy says:

    I understand the iconic significance of seeing Oprah win the C. B. DeMille Award, because it’s a big TV show and all, but I hope no one ever tells all the little girls who are inspired by this win that the HFPA is really just a bunch of schmoozing journalists who were always considered a joke until someone decided there was big bucks in airing another Oscar-type awards show. I mean, they’re still a joke, but fewer “lay people” seem to be in on it these days.

    Poitier’s Oscar win meant something because it was an honor from his peers in the tumultuous Civil Rights era. Oprah’s Globe was a ratings grab by a comparative handful of opportunists.

  14. iothereturned says:

    Yancy, the whole “Globes” thing, is always so frustrating. All of the rags and other entertainment blogs/websites and so forth… treat them like they are important. Like they are a precursor to something, and it’s headscratchingly bizarre that they are treated this way.

    Dick Clark, was a genius, and this was one of his best ideas. He basically, created alternate awards to the Grammys and the Oscars, and people and the artist who love those awards… supported it. Never let it be stated, that Dick Clark didn’t have things figured out. He really did.

    What’s even more ridiculous about the Globes, is the BAFTAS are usually a better representative guess about the Oscar noms, because of the large English voting block. The tyranny of distance keeps them from being a thing, when they are such a better show than the Oscars or the Globes. Same with the Sag awards.

  15. Doug R says:

    “Virtue signalling”?

  16. Hcat says:

    virtue signalizing is an insulting concept that people only like things to make themselves look more virtuous. Oprah only gets an award so they can applaud an African American woman. Not that she created a Billion Dollar television enterprise and a cable channel completely out of nothing. Forget her charitable endeavors or that she is easily the most recognizable person in a hall full of Hollywood’s biggest current talent, they gave her an award to feel good about themselves for honoring a woman.

    I’m sure others who use the term also feel that way about Lady Bird’s win, and completely discount the fact that it was received with more praise than any other recent film to shrug and say “of course they gave the award to a girly movie, look how much SJWs have been complaining this year.”

    Virtue Signaling is a dog whistle term that replaces calling them affirmative action nominations and winners because that would be too openly racist and sexist.

  17. spassky says:

    Oprah’s award is very well-earned, “lady bird”, “get out”, are great films. but let’s not pretend the actual racists and sexists in hollywood (of which there are plenty, but are not the whole) aren’t trying to find a nice balance right now to pat themselves on the back. (I would love for that to be “Felicite” but whatever).

    you’re right though, right when i used the term, I regretted it. But it wasn’t too long ago before the term was hijacked by rightwingers, and was more an insult to white men you typically find in a forum like this, who are desperate to vocally let others know how virtuous they are in a sea of miscreants (see: James Franco wearing a “times up” pin, Bob Iger).

    I operate in a very diverse and liberal community and this term still comes up — mostly to criticize white males who aren’t really that different from those they themselves criticize. It was not meant to be an insult to the “diverse” awards contenders, but more white men who use these awards winners and contenders (again, BOB IGER) to bolster themselves.

    I guess this is the new rhetoric to replace “tokenism”, which I suspect in itself was a term created by liberals to object to the haphazard and two-dimensional portrayals of female and minority characters. (EDIT: a very cursory wikipedia search revealed that Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used the term to criticize then-current representation)

    While I really don’t like the way you addressed the issue, I guess it’s important to constantly re-contextualize political terms that are constantly being weaponized in the current climate. So thanks, HCAT.

  18. spassky says:

    Oh, and to be clear: you can be virtue signaling and still be right. You can still like a great film for the wrong reasons. We are talking about awards, which are themselves a problematic gesture.

  19. Hcat says:


    I just tried to edit the post and accidently hit cancel and not refresh. After rereading my post I recognize that I threw you under the bus and painted you with too broad a brush. I have seen that term used a couple times in the last month and find it a little worrisome.

    I apologize if my post made assumptions about your beliefs or integrity. I made a mistake by not originally qualifying that I could not possibly know the intent in which you used the term.

    I believe the term was first used as a marketing technique and then moved as you mentioned to common parlance to describe the ‘I listen to nothing but Jazz” or “If its not an organic microbrew I will not drink it” crowd.

    Sometimes shooting these off in downtimes at work means shooting myself in the foot. I did not mean to go all Sutherland at the end of Body Snatchers at you.

  20. spassky says:

    No offense taken: it’s tough to not get worried/anxious about everything that’s going on these days. Add to that, each side is constantly trying to hijack/co-opt/transpose/displace rhetoric of the other in order to “win”. Anyone else have a problem with like-mindeds using the terms “cuck” and “snowflake” in comments sections to insult Republicans? Cause it kind of grosses me out.

    But anyway, it’s easy to go all in these days. I *cried* while watching Oprah’s speech. I cried during a Golden Globes speech. That happened. For the Golden Globes. What a world we live in. (cue horny HFPA member hitting on Oprah Winfrey)

  21. spassky says:

    “‘I listen to nothing but Jazz” or “If its not an organic microbrew I will not drink it” crowd”

    HA I definitely have one foot in this crowd and i’m trying to have some humor and self-insight. Don’t feel the need to back down — you did good.

    “Sometimes shooting these off in downtimes at work means shooting myself in the foot. I did not mean to go all Sutherland at the end of Body Snatchers at you.”

    HA! I realized I spelled “sea” as “see” above. i feel that’s much worse. it’s blog comments. it happens.

  22. Doug R says:

    ^I believe the term you are looking for is “hipster doofus”.
    I only use the term “cuck” to throw back at mango menace supporters:!/img/httpImage/image.jpg

  23. spassky says:

    Doug R — I’m sorry, but I don’t think you understood my comment. What you linked to is exactly the type of counteractive, unhelpful rhetorical reciprocity that makes me cringe. It doesn’t help your argument against trump supporters/conservatives, and only makes you seem shallow and without an actual argument.

    Since you’re not trying to win the hearts and minds (what’s left) of conservatives, then stop using their terms for hit points. It only makes others with similar views (like myself; EDIT: liberal, trump-hating) cringe and see how desperate we are to still have a thumb on the conversation.

  24. Doug R says:

    It’s been established these people are closed off from argument. Their support is based on following someone who gets away with what they want to do because they perceive these guys as confident winners. Everything I can do to undercut this and help toward the collapse of their hero I do. Polls are showing that support is going from strongly to sort of, I think it’s working.

  25. spassky says:

    I like that explanation. Everyone protests in different ways, maybe I should respect that more. Thanks for expanding, Doug!

  26. YancySkancy says:

    spassky: I don’t begrudge Oprah any awards, but I’m not sure the phrase “well-deserved” has any meaning in the context of the Globes. To the extent it afforded her an opportunity for a stirring speech, no harm done, but the contrast between her speech and its venue can’t help but feel a bit absurd.

  27. palmtree says:

    In the absence of good faith (i.e. being open to being disproved by the facts and being capable of seeing when you are hypocritical), then it’s all about shutting down the corrosive-ness of intentionally bad faith trolls.

  28. spassky says:

    “…but the contrast between her speech and its venue can’t help but feel a bit absurd.” THIS. absolutely agreed.

  29. spassky says:

    “In the absence of good faith (i.e. being open to being disproved by the facts and being capable of seeing when you are hypocritical), then it’s all about shutting down the corrosive-ness of intentionally bad faith trolls.”

    What are you proposing is the best way to do that?

  30. iothereturned says:

    I am just putting this here, because we still do not have a BYOB. This, to me, is the story of Winter 2018, and I love it.

  31. palmtree says:

    Oh man, if only I knew. I’m probably too non-confrontational to answer that question in a satisfying way. My main strategy is to avoid things that move us backward. To me shutting down someone means letting them know I’m onto them and trying to think like them to surgically hit them on a point that will affect them while not give them ammo to hit back.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Roger Ebert claimed that the re-editing of The Brown Bunny after Cannes allowed him a difference of opinion so vast that he first called it the worst film in history and eventually gave it a thumbs up. This is both far fetched and an outright lie. The truth is, unlike the many claims that the unfinished film that showed at Cannes was 24 minutes shorter than the finished film, it was only 8 minutes shorter. The running time I filled out on the Cannes submission form was arbitrary. The running time I chose was just a number I liked. I had no idea where in the process I would actually be when I needed to stop cutting to meet the screening deadline. So whatever running time was printed in the program, I promise you, was not the actual running time. And the cuts I made to finish the film after Cannes were not many. I shortened the opening race scene once I was able to do so digitally. After rewatching the last 4 minutes of the film over and over again, somewhere within those 4 minutes, I froze the picture and just ended the film there, cutting out everything after that point, which was about 3 minutes. Originally in the salt flats scene, the motorcycle returned from the white. I removed the return portion of that shot, which seemed too literal. And I cut a scene of me putting on a sweater. That’s pretty much it. Plus the usual frame here, frame there, final tweaks. If you didn’t like the unfinished film at Cannes, you didn’t like the finished film, and vice versa. Roger Ebert made up his story and his premise because after calling my film literally the worst film ever made, he eventually realized it was not in his best interest to be stuck with that mantra. Stuck with a brutal, dismissive review of a film that other, more serious critics eventually felt differently about. He also took attention away from what he actually did at the press screening. It is outrageous that a single critic disrupted a press screening for a film chosen in main competition at such a high profile festival and even more outrageous that Ebert was ever allowed into another screening at Cannes. His ranting, moaning and eventual loud singing happened within the first 20 minutes, completely disrupting and manipulating the press screening of my film. Afterwards, at the first public screening, booing, laughing and hissing started during the open credits, even before the first scene of the film. The public, who had heard and read rumors about the Ebert incident and about me personally, heckled from frame one and never stopped. To make things weirder, I got a record-setting standing ovation from the supporters of the film who were trying to show up the distractors who had been disrupting the film. It was not the cut nor the film itself that drew blood. It was something suspicious about me. Something offensive to certain ideologues.”
~ Vincent Gallo

“I think [technology has[ its made my life faster, it’s made the ability to succeed easier. But has that made my life better? Is it better now than it was in the eighties or seventies? I don’t think we are happier. Maybe because I’m 55, I really am asking these questions… I really want to do meaningful things! This is also the time that I really want to focus on directing. I think that I will act less and less. I’ve been doing it for 52 years. It’s a long time to do one thing and I feel like there are a lot of stories that I got out of my system that I don’t need to tell anymore. I don’t need to ever do The Accused again! That is never going to happen again! You hit these milestones as an actor, and then you say, ‘Now what? Now what do I have to say?'”
~ Jodie Foster