-
-
I never have understood the “voters didn’t get screeners” argument. Movies like Creed were in wide release, so voters can easily go to any movie theater and watch them like everyone else. It’s lazy excuses when they try to say they couldn’t vote because they never got a screener. Unless the movie is strictly a late release or only available on disc, you should be able to get yourself to a local screening. It ain’t that difficult.
I think Stallone is the favorite, BUT who ever wins the SAG is going to be in the headlines and we will have a race. If Rylance wins SAG and BAFTA, that’s your second option. If Bale wins SAG, Rylance wins BAFTA then it’s def Stallone. But who knows really. I think they want Sly to win. You can feel the heat in the room for him. And unlike Bacall, he does have a more likable personality. Also voters just went nuts for The English Patient in 1996- it won 9 Oscars and with three acting nominations, someone was bound to triumph and Binoche deserved it. They made it up to Bacall later with an honorary statue.
ReplyCopy URLFollow Me on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/jasonmovieguy
13K Subscribers, 29 Million ViewsFYC: Derbyite of the Year, 2017
I love this thread, it discusses what I’ve been honing in on most. Sylvester Stallone certainly has love from The Academy. If he wins, it will partially be based on a John Wayne (“True Grit”) sentimentality. Or Helen Hayes in Airport, for that matter. Mark Rylance is his worthiest rival based upon his impressive stage pedigree & previous Tony Awards. Tom Hardy seems to be gaining momentum.
I believe it’s a fair assessment to say Lauren Bacall lost out to Binoche in part due to her industry perception as a b*tch as well as backlash against Streisand. Stallone doesn’t have such an obstacle to overcome. That said, I feel this category is the most vulnerable to fluctuation during this time of Oscar campaigning.
ReplyCopy URLIndeed, keep in mind Streisand openly protested basically that whole awards season – she refused to go to the Globes b/c she didn’t garner a Directing nod and then refused to attend/perform at the Oscars b/c of the lack of an Best Actress nomination. That, coupled with Bacall’s reputation + voters waking up to fact she was never that great an actress + the obvious alternative in Binoche = a prime scenario for an upset. What also really helped Binoche was none of Allen, Hershey or Jean-Baptiste received SAG nods – it was a really unsettled and chaotic category beyond Bacall and Binoche.
ReplyCopy URL
This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.There’s a big difference between Stallone and Bacall, he’s an older man (and those almost always win in supporting actor category) and she was an older woman. Older women never win at Oscars either in supporting or especially in leading (unless their name is Meryl Streep).
That’s a good observation. clearly the Academy’s being skewed towards older men helps Stallone more than it helped Bacall, but is that really why she lost?? I mean, the comparison I’m making between the two is because of the Narrative. Everyone just assumed her to be the lock because of the standing ovations and her being Lauren Bacall who, despite being such a legend, had no Oscars. I don’t think anyone was calling her performance the most crtically acclaimed, they all just thought members of the Academy would want to see her on stage.
Which is exactly what I’m hearing for Stallone. People want to see him on the stage, he’s never won an Oscar despite being a legend, he’s getting the standing O’s. The narrative is exactly the same as Bacall’s was. So, are we making the same mistake by assuming him to be the favourite?? And his Sag and Bafta snubs can’t help him right?
ReplyCopy URLBacall really wasn’t very good in that film. I think they smartened up at the last minute and justifiable didn’t go for a career award for a person who really didn’t have that great of a career.
Well in that case, how can we expect them to vote for someone with as many Razzies as Stallone? Wasn’t he named the worst actor of the decade or something??
ReplyCopy URL
This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.everyone is talking about diversity (in that moment) so, why the
academy members would decide to reward stallone for a character he
created 40 years ago ?…This is his 2nd acting nomination for the same
role !!!… Come on !… with all the problems caused with this years 20
actors nominees, every voters should choose someone who embodies a real
change for the Oscars and i think Rylance is the one ! Christian Bale
is already an Oscar winner, Tom Hardy, 1st time nominee, is “the” actor
of the year (Legend/Mad Max/The revenant) Mark Ruffalo, has just
received a 2nd acting nod, 2 year in a row, that’s a reward !…
Stallone a movie star, more famous for his number of razzies nominations
than everything else… So in my opinion, this is the moment to reward a
great stage actor like Rylance for his contribution for the Cinema !…
END OF STORYThis post makes zero sense. Sylvester Stallone isn’t famous because he has a lot Razzie nominations. Most people don’t even know what a Razzie is nor care about them. Stallone is famous for playing Rocky and Rambo. How does giving an Oscar to Mark Rylance embody a real change and prove diversity?
[quote=”Natasha”]
There’s a big difference between Stallone and Bacall, he’s an
older man (and those almost always win in supporting actor category) and
she was an older woman. Older women never win at Oscars either in
supporting or especially in leading (unless their name is Meryl Streep).That’s a good observation. clearly the Academy’s being
skewed towards older men helps Stallone more than it helped Bacall, but
is that really why she lost?? I mean, the comparison I’m making between
the two is because of the Narrative. Everyone just assumed her to be the
lock because of the standing ovations and her being Lauren Bacall who,
despite being such a legend, had no Oscars. I don’t think anyone was
calling her performance the most crtically acclaimed, they all just
thought members of the Academy would want to see her on stage.Which
is exactly what I’m hearing for Stallone. People want to see him on the
stage, he’s never won an Oscar despite being a legend, he’s getting the
standing O’s. The narrative is exactly the same as Bacall’s was. So,
are we making the same mistake by assuming him to be the favourite?? And
his Sag and Bafta snubs can’t help him right?[/quote]Stallone has the critical acclaim backing.
[quote=”RobertPius”]
Bacall really wasn’t very good in that film. I think they
smartened up at the last minute and justifiable didn’t go for a career
award for a person who really didn’t have that great of a career.Well in that case, how can we expect them to vote for
someone with as many Razzies as Stallone? Wasn’t he named the worst
actor of the decade or something??
[/quote]Razzies don’t mean anything. They just take shots at big stars. I doubt anybody in Hollywood cares.
ReplyCopy URL
This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.While The Mirror Has Two Faces is a flawed film, I thought Lauren Bacall was magnificent.
There is a lovely scene where Hannah Morgan and her University professor daughter Rose talk over breakfast. The room is decorated with photos of a young Hannah (Bacall in her prime). Rose who suffers from poor self-esteem asks her mother, “What was it like being beautiful?” Hannah’s aged face changes in a manner that makes her appear younger, vibrant. Her voice lilts and she replies, “It was magical.” Hannah then discusses how beautiful Rose was as a child. The moment feels genuine. There is a tenderness present between these two women that has been belied in earlier scenes. Only in these moments with Hannah and Rose does the movie feel true. It captures the complexity of the parent and child relationship.
I can’t help but wonder why a legendary star like Bacall is derided. Some posters have labeled the actress with the most offensive of terms. They echo of comments made about Streisand. I don’t think all women in the industry who weather the storms and have life long careers endure such negativity. Are such salvos reserved for incredibly successful and talented Jewish women?
I dont want to analyze the whys. But, to them, Lauren can put her lips together, and “blow”.
And better than anyone.
ReplyCopy URLDo Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Philip K Dick Blade Runner[quote=”RobertPius”]
After seeing the ovation at the Critic’s Choice, I think he is a lock. Plus I can’t see who would beat him. Bale just won, Ruffalo didn’t get a SAG nomination and didn’t really stand out from the ensemble. Rylamce is a quiet performance in a less popular film, and Hardy’s nomination is his award. (I guess Hardy has the best chance but I don’t really see it happening.)
Okay, maybe you want Stallone to win but don’t twist facts!
There is no way that Creed is a more popular film than Bridge of Spies. Bridge of Spies has six Oscar nominations, including best picture. Creed has one nomination. Precursor-wise, Stallone has the Globe but he won’t be at the SAG Awards and the BAFTA’s. Mark Rylance will be there and stands a very good chance at winning both. Stallone could have some sentiment, but so did Mickey Rourke. And he even won BAFTA. He still lost. Rylance is a beloved stage actor. Maybe the general public doesn’t know about his achevements on stage, but many Academy voters do. And the performance is subtle but powerful. The Academy has more than a month to forget about Stallone.[/quote]Mickey Rourke was up against Academy favorite Sean Penn in a very baity role as Harvey Milk.
ReplyCopy URL
This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.
This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.I actually think John C. Reilly’s the most apt comparison for Hardy – a supporting actor in multiple Best Picture nominees who’s highly unlikely to prevail. Him winning would be the biggest upset in this category since James Coburn, who also benefitted from a really chaotic and unpredictable line-up.
The best comparison to Beatrice Straight would probably be if McAdams somehow won. ’76 Supporting Actress was a real oddball of a category, though, because Talia Shire, who won at NBR/NYFCC in Supporting, was campaigned in Lead for the Oscar, and Katherine Ross, who won the Globe for “Voyage of the Damned,” wasn’t Oscar-nominated at all. The nominees were Straight and Alexander, who didn’t show up at a single precursor and were pulled in by the Academy’s love for their pictures, Laurie for a slasher movie, Grant who’d just won two years prior and Foster, who’s film the Academy didn’t particularly like. Really, anybody could’ve won that.
ReplyCopy URL
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
