Forum Replies Created
February 22, 2018 at 12:20 am #1202498614
C’mon. Fisher is 42 year old actress that’s been a B-List comic actress in Hollywood for 14 years. I happen to think Adams is overrated and over-nominated, but the window for Fisher to have a career like Adams is firmly shut. So many factors are against her….her age, that she’s been a known quantity for so long (Hollywood prefers to mint new female A-listers, not promote B/C listers that have been schlepping around town for 15 years).
Could Fisher get an Oscar nomination one day? I suppose so, in the right circumstances (like many actors). But even then, it’s not suddenly going to turn her into some A-lister or perrenial nominee. I think Fisher’s stuck to comedy for so long partially because she lacked confidence in her dramatic skills. Adams would not be where she is to day if she kept doing comedies like Enchanted.February 11, 2018 at 12:48 am #1202491582
You are either not very smart, or playing dumb. Neither is a major achievement.
Whatever “parrallels” you see in Denzel’s and Oldman’s performance is irrelevant to the actual point that was being made. A technically showy impersonation of an important, recognisable real life person often has particular advantadges with the academy that an original fictionalised character does not, and that would be to Oldman’s advantadge whether or not he was considered overdue. Hoffman was used a a parrallel for a reason. You could also throw in Sean Penn as Harvey Milk vs Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler.
Moving along….February 10, 2018 at 10:09 pm #1202491544
You may not think it’s worthy or deserving, but performances like Oldman’s win all the damned time without overdue narratives.
You mean like Denzel last year? Oh wait…
Yes, because Denzel in Fences played an important real life historical figure, just like my examples of Hoffman and Oldman….
Oh, that’s right….he didn’t. He played a fictional garbageman from a play adaptation. Fictional Troy from Pittsburgh and Truman Capote and Winston Churchill are not the same thing. It’s dumb to even go there,
I assume you think that was supposed to be some clever retort, but you just come off lacking in intelligence and basic comprehension. No offense.February 10, 2018 at 6:49 pm #1202491474
If Oldman wins it will be on the merit of this year’s performance. Only. And it is a worthy performance.
Oldman may be overdue, but don’t get it twisted. He gives the exact kind of performance that they hand out oscars to anyway, even if his overdue narrative was non-existant. You may not think it’s worthy or deserving, but performances like Oldman’s win all the damned time without overdue narratives. The technical showiness and the historical importance of the character are all that’s needed
However you feel about the performance, it’s pure oscarbait. In the same way many might have felt Heath Ledger should have won for Brokeback Mountain, Philip Seymour Hoffman’s technicaly showy biopic impersonation of a historically important character won the day.February 10, 2018 at 6:37 pm #1202491471
I haven’t read the book so I don’t really know which parts they would keep for the movie but I think that if Nicole Kidman’s character was downsized for Reese Witherspoon’s arc then Nicole Kidman could win Supporting Actress. It probably would not win Picture but I think it would get nominated. Adapted Screenplay is ridiculously weak this year so it definitely would get nominated for that. Could Reese Witherspoon be nominated? I don’t know, would Meryl be snubbed? She definitely would have gotten in at the Globes over Michelle Williams and maybe SAG.
Nominations for Big Little Lies Movie:
Best Supporting Actress- Nicole Kidman (win)
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Actress- Reese Witherspoon
Best Production Design
Best Director- Jean-Marc Vallee
Best Supporting Actor- Alexander Skarsgard
Why would Kidman’s arc be downsized for Witherspoon’s? Kidman’s arc is the crux of the show. Everything ultimately leads to her abusive relationship. Even the murder subplot. No way Kidman gets relegated to supporting.February 10, 2018 at 6:32 pm #1202491469
I think the only sure thing is that Nicole Kidman would sweep the Best Actress awards all the way up to the Oscars.
The way she effortlessly destroyed a field of competitors that included Reese Witherspoon, Jessica Lange, Felicity Huffman, Carrie Coon, Susan Sarandon and Laura Dern was kinda legendary. It’s one thing to sweep against so-so competition, but to wipe out some of the best actresses on the planet in peak form is something special.February 8, 2018 at 6:19 am #1202489962
MCU films never happen because Disney literally make no effort to campaign for awards or oscars. They just aren’t interested. As long as the films make bank, they are satisfied.
If they decide to spend money on a campaign for this particular MCU movie, with their basically limitless resources, things will get very interesting.February 7, 2018 at 7:24 am #1202489252
If reviews stay at this level, it has to be a Best Picture contender in the expanded field. It looks on course to overtake Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight as the most critically well recieved live action superhero film in history.
Release date isn’t ideal for BP odds, but Get Out was a Feburary genre release as well, so I don’t think it’s a dealbreaker.January 29, 2018 at 3:10 pm #1202481623
Haha it is not Oldman vs. Washington. It has never been down to those 2. It’s been Oldman all the way with Chalamet in second.
Yes, cause a stan isn’t a reliable source lol.
Yeah, but someone who actually understands how actors think, probably is. I wasn’t calling Washington vs Oldman at SAG, from the perspective of a stan, but from the perspective of someone who actually understands the thought processes of actors. I’ve rarely come across anyone on this site who seems understand how actors actually think, which gives me a leg up in many of these conversations. Sorry to sound arrogant, but it’s the truth.
As far as the Oscars goes, Washington isn’t even in the conversation for an upset. But again, I use logic. I’ve been right so many times when it comes to how Washington is percieved in the industry and among actors (and so many people here have been wrong), but I don’t ever let being a stan cloud logical analysis.January 29, 2018 at 3:09 pm #1202481613
1) I would have voted for Denzel and Viggo before Casey (he was 3rd for me last year) but I think that it is certainly not a consensus that Denzel should have won. I think a lot of people agree that Affleck’s win was one of the best in that category in recent years. 2) About separating the art from the artist, in theory you might be right but I think your argument falls apart when looking at specific cases. Because if you watch an actor’s performance before you knew they were a creep you would have no idea. With new information does the performance change? Maybe in your perception but I would argue that that is more psychological than in reality.
Last year, I predicted that Affleck would win, and it was pretty obvious to me. Affleck won the BAFTA, Critics Choice, and Globe. He won at least 17 Best Actor trophies among film critic circles, and that doesn’t count online or festival awards or the Independent Spirit awards. Not only did he win pretty much all the big acting awards, the screenplay was favored to win Best Original. The only REASONS why people predicted Washington is because he won the SAG and Affleck’s settlement case became a news story. But as far as the art, his performance was the more popular choice.
All the other awards can be won by buzz and hype. At SAG, it’s craftspeople voting for the craft. As far as the actual craft of acting goes, if you sweep all these other awards, and your fellow actors don’t vote for you, then it means they didn’t buy into the hype. Affleck losing SAG to Washington was a huge deal. As far as actors were concerned, Washington gave the best performance of the year. If only the Actors Branch of AMPAS were allowed to vote for the winner, I suspect Denzel would easily have won the oscar. In all honesty, critics may have actually done Denzel a huge favor by undeservedly promoting Affleck’s performance over his. Actors saw through it, and as a result now Denzel basically has enough power within the Actors branch to probably break Jack Nicholson’s nomination record with the Academy.
Definitely disagree your sentiments on SAG. Just because they vote for something, it doesn’t make it the best.
It’s an important precursor, undoubtedly. But cases like Judi Dench winning for Chocolat or Paul Giamatti winning for Cinderella Man. They definitely feel like cases of voting for the actor. Dench hadn’t won an individual SAG award yet. (Giamatti had been “snubbed” by the Academy two years in a row prior to this).
The Oscars, obviously, do this too but my point is SAG isn’t JUST voting for what they view as the best performance. They may sometimes vote differently but that doesn’t mean that’s the best performance or the one that should have won.
SAG does not do make-up awards. This theory needs to end. SAG literally do not care if you’ve ever won before or not, no matter how great or legendary an actor you may be.
Robert DeNiro lost his third SAG nomination this year to a supporting actor performance (Alexander Skarsgaard) in the lead actor category for TV movie or mini-series. DeNiro is one of the most legendary actors in history and has never won a SAG award. They’ll only give him the win if they think he gives the best performance, not out of some make-up call. Other organisations like the oscars may do make-up awards or “overdue” awards, but not SAG.January 28, 2018 at 4:37 pm #1202481625
Yes, cause a stan isn’t a reliable source lol.
Yeah, but someone who actually understands how actors think, probably is. I wasn’t calling Washington vs Oldman at SAG, from the perspective of a stan, but from the perspective of someone who actually understands the thought processes of actors, and how they judge performances and actors. I’ve rarely come across anyone on this site who seems understand how actors actually think, which gives me a leg up in many of these conversations. Sorry to sound arrogant or condescending, but it’s the truth. People don’t like admitting their own ignorance or lack of knowledge about something. I actually think a several of the paid “experts” on this site are kinda clueless when it comes to viewing things from actors perspective as well. I read some of the analysis and I’m sort of gobsmacked about how off-base it is.
As far as the Oscars goes, Washington isn’t even in the conversation for an upset. But again, I use logic. I’ve been right so many times when it comes to how Washington is percieved in the industry and among actors (and so many people here have been wrong), but I don’t ever let being a a so-called stan cloud logical analysis. I actually know what I’m talking about.January 28, 2018 at 3:59 pm #1202480768
Denzel losing to Affleck. So good.
Wasn’t that just a shot of him being shown after his nomination clip was played. Pretty sure it was. For whatever reason, Denzel seemed anxious and on edge the whole night. But the whole “teary eyed” shot happened before he actually knew he lost.
Nope, it’s when Affleck accepts the Oscar and starts talking. He wasn’t happy at all. Go to 1:50.
He had the exact same “why am I even here” expression on his face after they showed his nomination clip, which is why it’s kinda hard to know the difference . He looked just as sad before he lost. He probably wasn’t ecstactic to lose, but Denzel pretty much looks miserable at any point during every awards show when he’s in the audience. I think it’s just the way he is. DeNiro is the same. I never watched the whole thing, so I assumed he just sat there and didn’t even clap for Affleck when he won, which wasn’t the case.January 28, 2018 at 11:01 am #1202481023
I don’t think he has been blacklisted – I merely wanted to have a discussion surrounding what effect (if any) his incidents had on his award potential. Looking objectively, it looks like at the very least it cost him Best Actor in 2002 if you review the precursors. It also stands to reason that it seems to have cost him again in other races, as he has again never been nominated for any other work that seemed to have buzz and award potential.
Ultimately that what I wanted to discuss, if these incidents were key in him seemingly never being nominated ever again for his work, even when there seemed to be support for them.
With Tom Hanks it seems like he has just been naturally aged out of the nomination process by the Academy. There’s no clear reason as to why, with Russel there does seem to be a reason for why the Academy doesn’t want to nominate him any longer.
If Crowe had actually done something people were really passionate about after Cinderella Man, I think he’d have been more than capable of being nominated. Yes, he threw a phone at someone, but incidents like that get forgotten pretty quickly. Sean Penn was beating up photographers and doing jail time for assualt when he was younger, and he ended up winning 2 oscars. I honestly think Cinderella Man is the only possible nomination he lost out on due to his behavior. It would have been forgotten about the next time he gave a performance that they really loved.
Crowe simply hasn’t had a performance that’s had enough passion behind it for a long time. And he’s made a lot of films. He’s very quickly gone from superstar leading man to almost a competent journeyman character actor. His performance reviews seemed to have gotten a lot weaker over the years as well. I mean, he’s just been nominated for a Razzie for The Mummy.
His best recieved performance in years was for The Nice Guys, and even then Ryan Gosling got better reviews. Crowe is just a classic example of a guy who had an excellent peak period, but sort of misplaced his mojo and has yet to recover it. He’s adds value as a name to a project, but no one gets particularly excited by his acting anymore. If he wants to get nominated again, he needs to dig deeper and give a performance people can’t ignore.January 28, 2018 at 4:15 am #1202480776
I can’t wait to see Denzel’s reaction this year when Oldman wins. I’m gonna watch the Oscars just to see his ‘not this shit again’ expression live.
He’s actually friends (or friendly) with Oldman. They worked together on The Book Of Eli, and it was Denzel that was responsible for him being cast. Denzel grabbed Oldman for a big hug when Oldman was walking towards the podium to collect his SAG award, and Oldman said afterwards that he was moved to tears by the gesture as he respects Denzel so much.
Denzel knows he has no chance this year (he’s won nothing leading up to the ceremony), he likes Oldman a lot and knows the guy is overdue. I think he’ll probably be looking miserable for most of the ceremony, because he clearly doesn’t like being at any of these things (him and DeNiro always seem like they’d rather be anywhere else), but if his reaction at SAG is any indication, he’ll be happy for Oldman to finally collect his oscar.January 27, 2018 at 7:58 pm #1202480616
Denzel losing to Affleck. So good.
Wasn’t that just a shot of him being shown after his nomination clip was played. Pretty sure it was. For whatever reason, Denzel seemed anxious and on edge the whole night. But the whole “teary eyed” shot happened before he actually knew he lost. He defintely had something going on in his mind, but that shot was not about him reacting poorly to losing.
Yeah, I just watched the clip of Affleck winning to make certain. Denzel immediately started clapping for Affleck and breaks into a smile when his name was announced. He didn’t have an awkward reaction at all.
Anyway, the clip of Washington’s real reaction is here (at 2:45):