Join the fiesty discussion going on right now in our infamous message boards where Hollywood stars, directors, execs and other honchos hide behind cyber-nicknames. Sample comments below with links to those hot threads. See more here.
Tye-Grr: Saw “Fury” tonight with my brother. Strong war film, and at times a very intriguing character study. Brad Pitt does very strong work as Wardaddy, and he holds the film together. Logan Lerman is the heart of the film as the newest recruit, and he does some very fine work. Jon Bernthal goes all in as the most mentally distraught member, and Michael Peña does solid work as the most underwritten character. The one who steals the film for me though is Shia LaBeouf, and he gets the most mysterious and possibly the most complex character.
Brian_Tooley: I just saw this and it is my favorite movie of 2014. Logan Lerman gives a fantastic performance. I predict his name will be among the best Supporting Actor nominees come Oscar. I give it an A+
Vincelette: I’m so happy for the Lerman mentiones. He was so snubbed in “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”. Let’s hope he can sneak in this time!
KyleBailey: I think it is the smartest move to go supporting because The Baker and The Baker’s Wife are the leads of “Into the Woods but the Witch has a resonable amount of time too.
ETPhoneHome: The role in the stage play is not the lead, but given that it’s Meryl Streep, I could see it going either way. She doesn’t seem to like being looked at as Supporting, and would go Lead Actress if she felt she could get nominated there. I expect she has a large role, but being that she weaves in and out, it will all depend on the amount of impact she has on the audience.
Word on the Streep: “Should” probably isn’t the right question. The answer is that she “could” go either. It’s been reported already that Disney will be pushing Streep supporting and Emily Blunt lead. Joanna Gleason won the Tony in lead for the Baker’s Wife. That’s probably a more believable placing than the other way around, based on the stage play.
bridgette: There’s been alot of controversy on whether or not Beyonce‘s album will win, but i’m sure we can all agree that it will at least be nominated. Now will it win? Again every year the grammys have plot twists. Like in the previous year when they snubbed Justin Timberlake‘s 20/20, yet added Sara Bareilles implausible album, or when Daft Punk snatched AOTY and ROTY. Who knows what’ll come about this year?
Final2: I think Taylor Swift has a legitimate shot at the GF now with Shake it Off she’s had nothing but very, very positive press lately. Add that it’s probably her biggest hit to date on top of that. Leading into her albums release day during Grammy voting she’ll definitely be on voters minds.
JustGuy89: Now that you guys saw that both Happy and All of ME aren’t eligible for Song of the Year, that leaves the race wide open not only in SOTY but also ROTY. When was the last time a live track was nominated in the general field?
EmmyLoser: It seemed like the initial plan was to vote Julie out, because Jon convinced them that the people whose loved ones are still there should get rid of the people whose loved ones are gone. I don’t get that strategy either, but it was far less clumsy than the things Drew, Keith and Jeremy did and said before and during tribal. Jeremy’s rant at tribal and talk about alliances and suballiances was a bit much, but the show is so self-aware now that it kind of doesn’t matter.
vinny: Drew was a mess. Like I could see why he wanted to thin the herd a bit but throwing the challenge like that was not the way to go. He should have had the weakes thhrower do the throwing. Would have saved him.
oopschoice: I kinda understand Jon’s strategy in wanting to get rid of Julie whose loved one was gone. In the previous edition of Blood vs Water, when the two tribes merged, people who were left with their loved ones would be targeted by people who weren’t, and Jon, who still had Jaclyn at the moment, may have wanted to prevent that by voting off people with no loved ones left first.
Daniel Montgomery: I think it’s all about who makes and judges movies: predominantly straight men. From that point of view, admiring young and beautiful women may seem natural, while men valued for their youth and/or beauty might make them more uncomfortable or can’t to be taken seriously. I think that might be a problem this year for Miles Teller, a heartthrob to a lot of young fans, Jack O’Connell, a heartthrob in the making, and maybe even Eddie Redmayne, who may not be considered a heartthrob, per se, but he was the dashing romantic hero of “Les Miserables,” and even though he’s on the right side of 30, he would still be one of the 10 youngest Best Actor winners ever.
Carol-Channing: Movies are made by mostly middle-aged, straight, white men. Middle-aged, straight, white men want to see themselves as the protagonists. So more movies are made about men from ages 30-65. So more great roles are written for male actors in that bracket. Middle-aged, straight, white men also love younger women, so whenever there is a female protagonist or a female playing opposite the protagonist, she is usually around 22-40 years old.
ibbster: There is definitely a percieved bias and it is harder for more youthful looking guys to be taken as seriously as some of their female counterparts (I don’t see much other reason to have lingering doubts about a Redmayne nomination this year), although, at the same time, it’s more difficult for those same women to find great roles as they age as opposed to once the men grow out of their baby stages and can often become Academy institutions a la George Clooney/Brad Pitt (unless you’re Meryl, but she wasn’t considered the standard young beauty when she started out compared to contemporaries like Jessica Lange).