- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:02 pm to 3nOut
quote:
that's the answer. he wasn't Bradley Cooper, Leo, Daniel Day Lewis, (or even) Russell Crowe at the time. Pretty young in his career.
Bradley Cooper at the time wasn’t even acting.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:08 pm to Honest Tune
quote:
To me it seems like the Oscar nods used to mean a little bit more back then in the 2000s and before, where it was awarded to someone perfecting their craft in movies I’ve heard of.
How are you defining "nods?" That word's typically used just for nominations. And I'd agree that nominations probably did use to mean a little more. But if you're talking actual "wins," I think you may be romanticizing those times due to nostalgia. I'm sure I do too, but when you go back and look at some of those late 90s/early 2000s years, you really see how politics--Hollywood politics--started having way too much influence. Most notably in the '99 Oscars (films of '98) when Weinstein and co. sold his soul to the devil (again) and somehow bullied people into voting for Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan.
Which was a travesty for a couple of reasons, mainly because Ryan was the superior film, but also because it actually wound up tarnishing Shakespeare in Love, which is a nice little film, but is now mostly remembered for be an undeserving Best Picture winner more than for the film itself. Pretty telling that it won Best Picture, Gweneth Paltrow won Best Actress for its (wtf), Judi Dench won Best Supporting Actress, it won Best Original Screenplay, and Geoffery Rush was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but Speilberg won Best Director.
And besides campaigns, there's sometimes the issue of "make up wins" like Crowe for Gladiator, or "lifetime achievement" wins like Scorsese for The Departed that distort who was actually the most "deserving" that particular year. I'm one of the few that still thinks the Oscars are important--though I don't watch them anymore when I used to watch every minute start to finish. But I'm not sure when they were the most "pure," if they ever really were.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:16 pm to timbo
quote:
The Oscars are pretty notorious for spreading awards around.
Not really. Pretty common for Best Pictures to have multiple acting winners.
quote:
Gotta figure a lot of the voters were picking Gladiator for best picture, Russell Crowe for best actor, Ridley Scott for best director
Ridley Scott didn't win Best Director. Soderbergh did for Traffic. Gladiator was the 1st Best Picture winner in 40 or 50 years to not win either Best Director or Best Screenplay. And as much as we love it, it probably shouldn't have won. It was kind of a mess. Traffic and Crouching Tiger were better films.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:23 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Bradley Cooper at the time wasn’t even acting.
That wasn't his point. But Phoenix wasn't a nobody--he had been acting since the 80s (Space Camp, Parenthood, etc..) and came from a known acting family. And one thing the Academy has traditionally done well is vote for "unknowns" in the Supporting categories anyway.
That's not why Phoenix didn't win. It was just a stacked category and Del Toro was really good, though obviously, in a much more reserved performance. Which oftentimes, are the hardest to pull off. Phoenix was certainly great, but it was a great, showy part that probably a handful of actors his age could have pulled off. I'm not sure how many people could have done what Del Toro did in Traffic.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:24 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
How are you defining "nods?" That word's typically used just for nominations.
Nominations. Solid post. Upvote.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:27 pm to Honest Tune
quote:
Nominations. Solid post. Upvote.
Thanks. Great topic, too.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:28 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
Phoenix was certainly great, but it was a great, showy part that probably a handful of actors his age could have pulled off.
Reading some wiki on it last night, Ridley Scott wanted Phoenix from word go and got him, so I’m not sure who else was in consideration.
Maximus was shopped to Antonio Banderas ( that would have been a disaster) , Mel Gibson (would have crushed but he might have been a bit too William Wallace with it), Tom Cruise (can he even grow a beard?) and Tom Sizemore (risky but maybe a hit). In the end, Crowe was the right choice.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:46 pm to Honest Tune
He was certainly creepy and uncomfortable to watch in that role.
Did a great job.
Did a great job.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 1:58 pm to Honest Tune
quote:
Reading some wiki on it last night, Ridley Scott wanted Phoenix from word go and got him, so I’m not sure who else was in consideration.
I'm sure you're right--I doubt Ridley considered anybody else. And I'd have to think of actors around his age that were working at the time. There may not have been anybody else who could have pulled it off without the movie being lesser for it. I certainly don't mean to minimize his amazing performance at all. And I wouldn't argue against him winning if he had. Just that I can see the arguments for some of the other nominees.
And I'm glad he finally won for Joker. He probably would have won for The Master if it weren't for Daniel Day Lewis being in Lincoln the same year. Hell, I'm not sure he shouldn't have been nominated for 8MM, but I'd have to go back and look at who the nominees were that year. But if he hadn't won for Joker, we may have found ourselves in another "make up" situation where he wound up winning for a less deserving performance later on because one of the best actors of that generation hadn't won yet. Like Leo winning for The Revenant.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:15 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
Not really. Pretty common for Best Pictures to have multiple acting winners.
I dunno. It always seems like if a couple of movies get a bunch of nominations, they all pick up an award. Like maybe the same picture gets best film, best director and a win in an acting category. Another movie with a bunch of nominations gets a win in another acting category, etc.
quote:
Ridley Scott didn't win Best Director. Soderbergh did for Traffic.
Yeah, but you have to figure Scott was the first runner up.
quote:
And as much as we love it, it probably shouldn't have won. It was kind of a mess. Traffic and Crouching Tiger were better films.
I don't remember Gladiator that well - probably because I saw it at a second run theater when I was drunk. I remember being blown away by Crouching Tiger.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 2:19 pm to timbo
quote:
It always seems like if a couple of movies get a bunch of nominations, they all pick up an award. Like maybe the same picture gets best film, best director and a win in an acting category. Another movie with a bunch of nominations gets a win in another acting category, etc.
Look at 2004. RotK won everything it was nominated for. Seabiscuit got royally screwed (losing all of its noms, six to RotK), but all the other BP noms got awards in other "big" categories (Mystic River got two acting awards, Lost in Translation got original screenplay, Master and Commander got cinematography).
That was a stacked year though.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 3:24 pm to 3nOut
quote:
That being said Nice Guys is my favorite movie of his in the last 20 years.
This movie is an absolute blast.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 3:45 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
And besides campaigns, there's sometimes the issue of "make up wins" like Crowe for Gladiator, or "lifetime achievement" wins like Scorsese for The Departed that distort who was actually the most "deserving" that particular year.
Yeah...this happens quite a bit actually, especially during the time in which we are talking about here. Russell Crowe was solid in Gladiator but either Tom Hanks should have won for Cast Away or Ed Harris should have won for Pollock that year. Denzel Washington was solid in Training Day but Russell Crowe should have won for A Beautiful Mind that year.
This post was edited on 1/19/24 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 1/19/24 at 3:55 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Tom Hanks should have won for Cast Away
This came out my freshman year of college. I was all about a Hanks movie then and thought he should have won.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 4:00 pm to Honest Tune
quote:
Did you mean to say someone else? I had no idea who Cooper was until Wedding Crashers.
I remember him from Alias. But yeah, that was a small role.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 4:03 pm to Honest Tune
quote:
y’all REALLY want to have some fun, watch Gladiator under the current political lense with Trump as Maximus and the Deep State as Commodus.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 4:12 pm to RollTide1987
Denzel Washington winning for Training Day was a make up for him not winning for Malcolm X (although I've rewatched Training Day a shitload more times than Malcolm X)
Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman was a lifetime achievement award.
Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman was a lifetime achievement award.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 4:20 pm to timbo
quote:
Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman was a lifetime achievement award.
Just so.
The fact that he didn't win for The Godfather Part II is still mind blowing to me. That might be among the greatest performances from a lead actor I have ever seen in a movie.
Posted on 1/19/24 at 4:27 pm to RollTide1987
I haven’t looked up who won that year, but you’re right… his performance in GF2 is a masterpiece.
That whole film is elite.
That whole film is elite.
This post was edited on 1/19/24 at 4:28 pm
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News