If you look on the guy's twitter you'd see that he's clearly a straight guy. Why is it so hard for you to accept?
But just to clear this up, all the comments on WorldStarHipHop, the site YOU brought up and a known "straight" site, saying she looked hot and they'd like to bang her were from gay guys?
Okay.
Okay, you're right, I'm doing too much.
About 50 straight men still find Britney hot in 2013.
It’s the 21st century, and technology and the economy have changed everything. As a result, we have discarded a lot of old notions — and it’s time to dump several others.
For example, let’s get abolish the idea that an actor needs to be seen on camera in order to give a “real” performance. Scarlett Johansson creates a full character in “Her,” so she should be seriously considered for supporting actress.
The Rome Film Festival this week gave her the best actress prize. Fests are pretty unreliable as Oscar predictors, so it’s hardly an omen. But it IS a heads-up that some people are able to think outside the usual parameters. The Academy and SAG Awards have affirmed that she’s eligible; with Globe ballots going out Nov. 27, the HFPA hasn’t determined yet, but the org has often taken pride in pushing the envelope in its voting, so fingers are crossed.
For me, the two key factors in a great performance are whether anyone else could have played the role as well, and whether the character lingers after you’ve left the theater. In both questions Johansson earns perfect scores.
On the exhaustive (and exhausting) awards party circuit in the past few weeks, I’ve heard many people praise “Her” and her (i.e., Ms. Johansson). However, they speculate that “some people consider it’s only half a performance.” (I’m not kidding, I’ve heard those exact words several times.)
But look at Judi Dench in “Shakespeare in Love” or Beatrice Straight in “Network.” Each woman was onscreen for less than 10 minutes, but won Oscars. Were those only fractional performances? I consider them mega-performances because they created full, rounded characters with limited screen time.
Jean Dujardin, Jane Wyman and John Mills won Oscars for films where they didn’t talk. Anne Hathaway and Joel Grey won Oscars for singing, without speaking a line of dialog. Were those “half a performance”? Absolutely not.
There is no precedent for an Oscar nom for Johansson in the Warner Bros.-Spike Jonze film, but it’s the 21st century. It’s time to rethink things.
Some folks fear if Johansson is nominated, it would open the floodgates and the next step would be nominations for voice actors in animated films. Oh, horrors! What if Robin Williams (“Aladdin”), Ellen DeGeneres (“Finding Nemo”) or Eddie Murphy (“Shrek”) had been nominated? What if Andy Serkis had been nominated for his work in the “Lord of the Rings” movies or “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”? Somehow, civilization would have survived and some talented artists would have received their due recognition. And I doubt those kind of noms would have created a revolution in awards categories, just an expansion.
I can’t tell critics or members of voting organizations who they should vote for. But I CAN urge them to think outside the box. Johansson in “Her.” George Clooney in “Gravity” and Alfre Woodard in “12 Years a Slave.” Those two have limited screen time but they create vivid character who are crucial to the films. They should be considered as well.
It’s the 21st century, gang! And, whether the actor’s face is seen or not, a terrific performance will endure. So why not recognize the accomplishment?
Hmm, good for her, maybe motherhood will FINALLY inspire her to make a half decent, listenable song/record (highly doubt it since she's that useless and she hasn't made a single good song prior to this but whatever). I kinda feel bad for the baby though because having Kelly as a mother would be unbearable.
Hopefully this doesn't boost the sales/success of her terrible Christmas song. That would be shameful.
My case for Johansson comes down to this: Oscar voters didn't support motion-capture performances because that's the kind of scary technological thing that renders actors irrelevant. Johansson, though, isn't participating in the fall of Rome. She's using her voice, and she's able to convey a wealth of emotions and nuance without the help of any effects artists. Johansson's "Her" performance is basically the inverse of Jean Dujardin's Oscar-winning work in "The Artist." That's the comparable, not Andy Serkis in "Lord of the Rings" or Ellen DeGeneres in "Finding Nemo." To your other question: If anything, Johansson coming on late to replace Samantha Morton only helps her cause. She saves the movie, or at least gives off that impression: "Her" is very good, and Johansson's character is a big reason why it's very good. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
