( +3 hidden )
February 29, 2016 at 7:35 am #219401
Last year, I did polls asking who would win an Oscar first out of non-winners, and next for previous champions.
After four great actors joined the elusive winners club last night, it’s time to bring the poll back to ask which of the four (if any) do you think will win a second Oscar first?
While DiCaprio has no projects coming up from what I’ve seen, Larson has the likes of Free Fire and Basmati Blues coming up. Rylance will appear in The BFG, and Alicia Vikander doesn’t show any signs of slowing down, with Tulip Fever and The Light Between Oceans scheduled for release this year.
February 29, 2016 at 8:10 am #219404
next year will be hanks vs garfield for actor eastwood vs gibson for director
Hanks and Eastwood have enough Oscars. They may not be the frontrunners.
I think Rylance is the greatest talent here. But Dicaprio and Vikander will keep getting good roles. I think it is easier to win a second one if your first one is in supporting. I go with Vikander.February 29, 2016 at 8:23 am #219405
Larson is one and done like many starlets before her. Rylance will get another supporting or maybe even leading nomination in couple of years. DiCaprio will get couple of noms but won’t win again. As for that thirsty fraud Vikander hopefully she won’t be getting any nominations. And if her next studio movies flop financially Hollywood will throw her away and she’ll be going back to Sweden. They gave her award to make her their next best thing but she ain’t one.February 29, 2016 at 8:32 am #219407
Leo is still doing challenging roles and movies so he’ll get at least one more win, I could maybe see Vikander winning again, but not anytime soon. She’s young thoughFebruary 29, 2016 at 8:34 am #219406
None Will Win Again.
Brie Larson was like ”Give me my Oscar, let me take my home and be done with it” all Oscar season. I get that she doesn’t enjoy the ride as much as say, Vikander or Lawrence. She will focus on paycheck projects from now on. But she lacks that broad Holywood personality that makes stars superstars and good for her.
Vikander and Rylance will get nominated in near future.
And Leo in his 70’s.February 29, 2016 at 8:37 am #219408
Exactly. Brie Larson just isn’t a movie star but she’ll do fine.
Like Martha Plimpton once said: Movie stardom is not something you choose. It chooses you. You have very little control over that.
Truer words have never been spoken.February 29, 2016 at 9:45 am #219409
Alicia and Leo will probably win again. At least they will be nominated again for sure. Rylance is stage actor but he seems like a really nice person and he is very talented of course so I think he can become movie star in some way. Brie is big question mark for me. I think she will be comedy and blockbuster actress I don’t know why but this is what I feel.February 29, 2016 at 10:35 am #219410
As for that thirsty fraud Vikander hopefully she won’t be getting any nominations. And if her next studio movies flop financially Hollywood will throw her away and she’ll be going back to Sweden. They gave her award to make her their next best thing but she ain’t one.
That’s preposterous. At the very least, she’s getting more nominations. She had two movies in her first notable competitive American year for which she could have been nominated, with still very little household name recognition for normal people. Offers will explode for her after winning now, so all it will take is being in good movies a couple of times to fill the five nominees a couple more times in the next decade. She’s starting young enough that I could see her with like five or more in her career, and she strikes me along with Larson as the likeliest for another win.February 29, 2016 at 11:27 am #219411
Is that Scorsese-DiCaprio project The Devil in the White City still happening? DiCaprio is cast as a mass-murderer, so it’s hard to judge whether that would be baity or alienating. It would be great to see DiCaprio win again for a Scorsese film, as long as he is deserving. I wouldn’t necessariy write it off just because he’s finally won already. (Of course for this year, Scorsese has Silence. I’m wondering about Liam Neeson’s potential for Best Supporting Actor.)
As for the other three, there’s no reason to doubt that they could win again with the right project. Was anyone betting on Hilary Swank or Christoph Waltz to win a second Oscar within five and three years, respectively?February 29, 2016 at 11:36 am #219412
Had to go with Leo because he at least has shown a propensity to be nominated in years other than this one. He gets in like every other year too, so just playing the numbers game would probably get him another eventually.
Then again, Rylance does seem like he will be back. He has The BFG coming up, which will put him more into the mainstream and maybe he picks up an Emmy and SAG award if they bring Wolf Hall back. He does seem like he follow a Christoph Waltz trajectory of being a respected actor with a late-career surge. Not sure about Larson.
Vikander is only twenty-seven and has already appeared in four Oscar-nominated films (three winning), so she should be able to get another nomination with all of the work that she does in the prestige field. But it is hard to imagine them going back to that well for the win when she got her award as the token long-suffering wife.February 29, 2016 at 11:44 am #219413
Leo, perhaps. But I don’t feel like the Academy truly LOVES him. I felt like his win this year was more as a makeup award after years of being looked over for other actors. Now that the novelty is over and he has finally gotten an Oscar, there won’t be any immediate need to give him a win. I can see him being nominated several more times and losing.
Brie Larson doesn’t seem like an actress that will keep being on the Academy’s radar. However, I do agree that she could possibly take on some blockbuster and comedic roles, as someone says, and she could possibly be a nominee again somewhere down the line.
It could go either way with Vikander. I can definitely see her securing another nomination somewhere down the line. A win? Uncertain.
Rylance is someone I can see maybe scoring an Oscar for Best Actor soon enough.
So, out of these choices, I’ll go with Rylance.February 29, 2016 at 11:54 am #219414
For some reason I don’t see Vikander, Rylance and Larson winning more.
About Leo. Who are we kidding? It took so long to win his first one, but come on! He’s only 40. He can pretty much win more than one. I know that Larson & Vikander are also young, but they seem to be a one-hit wonder.February 29, 2016 at 12:13 pm #219415
I can totally picture DiCaprio winding up with about 3 Oscars, ala Nicholson, by the end of his career. I can also, however, see Rylance pulling a Jason Robards or Christoph Waltz in the future, with another supporting win. Vikander’s a decent possibility too. Larson, more doubtful, but still possible.February 29, 2016 at 2:26 pm #219416
Brie Larson was already on the Oscar radar with Short Term 12, so with the right roles, I can see more nominations.February 29, 2016 at 2:44 pm #219418
What people don’t see about DiCaprio is that he’s “old” now. He’s not some young stud, he’s a well-respected Oscar-winner actor over 40. The nominations & wins will come much more easily for him than it did before. And if we are talking about ‘before’ – he had like 5 acting nominations despite his ‘stud status’ in the industry for decades. Go Leo!