Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 10, 2019 20:15:30 GMT
Awards bodies generally separate actors by the size of the role they play: Lead or Supporting. Lead nominations/wins tend to be valued higher than Supporting nominations/wins, though not everyone subscribes to that. A lot of people (perhaps even some of the posters here) would argue that a Supporting nomination/win is just as valuable/desirable as a Lead nomination/win. Which side of the argument do you fall on?
1. Supporting nominations/wins are equally as valuable/desirable as Lead nominations/wins
2. Lead nominations/wins are more valuable/desirable than Supporting nominations/wins
[1] is self-explanatory. If you go with [2], how much more do you value a Lead nomination/win over a Supporting nomination/win? Does a Lead nomination/win count for twice as much as a Supporting nomination/win? Perhaps 1.5 times as much? Or would you rather suffice it to say that Lead > Supporting and not compare them in mathematical terms?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 10, 2019 20:19:39 GMT
Personally, Lead > Supporting. The Lead category generally tends to be more competitive (which is why Lead-to-Supporting frauds are way more common than Supporting-to-Lead frauds) and a Lead role is generally more important than a Supporting role.
As for how I would compare them mathematically, I think a Lead nomination/win being worth 1.5 times as much as a Supporting nomination/win sounds about right.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jul 10, 2019 20:20:36 GMT
I think the performance itself and its acclaim matters more than the Lead/Supporting distinction. For example, I'd value Christoph Waltz's Supporting win for Inglorious Basterds over Roberto Benigni's Leading win for Life is Beautiful.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 10, 2019 20:24:22 GMT
I think the performance itself and its acclaim matters more than the Lead/Supporting distinction. For example, I'd value Christoph Waltz's Supporting win for Inglorious Basterds over Roberto Benigni's Leading win for Life is Beautiful. Let's pretend we're talking about a borderline role (like, say, Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained or Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction). Hypothetically, if you were an actor in a borderline role with arguments for being both Lead and Supporting, which category would you rather get nominated/win for?
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jul 10, 2019 20:26:43 GMT
I think the performance itself and its acclaim matters more than the Lead/Supporting distinction. For example, I'd value Christoph Waltz's Supporting win for Inglorious Basterds over Roberto Benigni's Leading win for Life is Beautiful. Let's pretend we're talking about a borderline role (like, say, Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained). Hypothetically, if you were an actor with a borderline role with arguments for being both Lead and Supporting, which category would you rather get nominated/win for? I mean, I'd rather win so I'd prefer to go in the category where I can win. In a year with DDL in Lincoln, I'd run Supporting. If the year had Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight instead, I'd run Lead.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 10, 2019 20:27:01 GMT
In general Lead is an example of better actors , harder races, more difficult to sustain over time/career - there's exceptions of course and there's category fraud. But in general and you see this even better in the thread "Best Actors Across Stage/TV/Film" where a lot of time the talk is about "The Triple Crown" of acting. More people have it over supporting wins because it's easier - to have Lead wins is a big deal and the actors who have Lead wins are the better actors too. So, it's a general truth that doesn't always apply but that motto "a win is a win is a win" makes no sense to me. Tell Ali that his 2 Oscars are the equivalent of Hanks 2 wins -
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 10, 2019 20:28:01 GMT
Let's pretend we're talking about a borderline role (like, say, Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained). Hypothetically, if you were an actor with a borderline role with arguments for being both Lead and Supporting, which category would you rather get nominated/win for? I mean, I'd rather win so I'd prefer to go in the category where I can win. In a year with DDL in Lincoln, I'd run Supporting. If the year had Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight instead, I'd run Lead. Let's say your odds of being nominated and winning are the same in either category. Which would you prefer then?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 10, 2019 20:31:00 GMT
In general Lead is an example of better actors , harder races, more difficult to sustain over time/career - there's exceptions of course and there's category fraud. But in general and you see this even better in the thread "Best Actors Across Stage/TV/Film" where a lot of time the talk is about "The Triple Crown" of acting. More people have it over supporting wins because it's easier - to have Lead wins is a big deal and the actors who have Lead wins are the better actors too. So, it's a general truth that doesn't always apply but that motto "a win is a win is a win" makes no sense to me. Tell Ali that his 2 Oscars are the equivalent of Hanks 2 wins - "If you go with [2], how much more do you value a Lead nomination/win over a Supporting nomination/win? Does a Lead nomination/win count for twice as much as a Supporting nomination/win? Perhaps 1.5 times as much? Or would you rather suffice it to say that Lead > Supporting and not compare them in mathematical terms?"
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jul 10, 2019 20:31:26 GMT
I mean, I'd rather win so I'd prefer to go in the category where I can win. In a year with DDL in Lincoln, I'd run Supporting. If the year had Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight instead, I'd run Lead. Let's say your odds of being nominated and winning are the same in either category. Which would you prefer then? I couldn't give a shit either way, then. Whichever category has the bigger names/movies so I can get that rub.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 10, 2019 20:34:58 GMT
Let's say your odds of being nominated and winning are the same in either category. Which would you prefer then? I couldn't give a shit either way, then. Whichever category has the bigger names/movies so I can get that rub.Historically, that tends to be the Lead category, for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 10, 2019 20:41:04 GMT
In general Lead is an example of better actors , harder races, more difficult to sustain over time/career - there's exceptions of course and there's category fraud. But in general and you see this even better in the thread "Best Actors Across Stage/TV/Film" where a lot of time the talk is about "The Triple Crown" of acting. More people have it over supporting wins because it's easier - to have Lead wins is a big deal and the actors who have Lead wins are the better actors too. So, it's a general truth that doesn't always apply but that motto "a win is a win is a win" makes no sense to me. Tell Ali that his 2 Oscars are the equivalent of Hanks 2 wins - "If you go with [2], how much more do you value a Lead nomination/win over a Supporting nomination/win? Does a Lead nomination/win count for twice as much as a Supporting nomination/win? Perhaps 1.5 times as much? Or would you rather suffice it to say that Lead > Supporting and not compare them in mathematical terms?"I'd say the Oscars (and the other 2 awards bodies Tonys and Emmys too actually) have all become diluted to the extent that to me personally they no longer mean what they once meant so can't do in mathematical terms that consistently across all actors. I think the Oscars really changed when Hanks won back to back, the Weinstein era and Nicholson shortly thereafter won his 3rd..........to the point where you can't legitimately say "Hanks is twice the actor Albert Finney is!" ......and you can question there value entirely in many ways from 1996 - now..........but I do think Lead trumps Supporting big time if you're looking at it within its own parameters - and starting with the premise "these awards are bullsh it but that award is more bullsh it than the other award.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jul 10, 2019 20:43:36 GMT
Oh honey, lead of course! But I don't expect you to agree with me since you're all in supporting...
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,596
Likes: 2,073
|
Post by cherry68 on Jul 10, 2019 20:55:19 GMT
Let's be honest. When you ask the average people who won the Oscar for acting, they'll remember the leading performance more easily.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 10, 2019 20:57:27 GMT
I'd say the Oscars (and the other 2 awards bodies Tonys and Emmys too actually) have all become diluted to the extent that to me personally they no longer mean what they once meant so can't do in mathematical terms that consistently across all actors. Diluted how? There are no more acting awards today than there were back in 1936, which was the first year of the Supporting categories. Again, not sure what changed when Hanks won back-to-back. Within 5 years of the Supporting categories being introduced in 1936, you had Spencer Tracy winning 2 Lead Oscars back-to-back and Walter Brennan winning 3 Supporting Oscars. Back-to-back Lead wins and 3rd wins weren't novel when they happened in the '90s, because they'd already both happened in the '30s. I don't think you could ever legitimately say that one actor was twice another actor just because they had more Oscar wins. Not in the '30s, not in the '50s, not in the '70s, not in the '90s, and not now. Nothing has really changed on that front. "...suffice it to say that Lead > Supporting and not compare them in mathematical terms" it is, then.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 10, 2019 21:31:02 GMT
Well this might be just my pet theory but basically right now all 3 awards bodies have decreased imo for different reasons.
Theater has decreased because the nominating body is so small and the newspapers or magazine that often are comprised of people who now get money from shows - it never was like that. To me a Tony nomination means nothing - it now is all kickbacks and a small cadre of voters - literally as small as 50 for the nominating body - the best theater in New York hasn't been on Broadway in ages.
The Emmy's are a joke in a whole different way however basically with streaming - it's clear they don't see every show they are voting on and can't even. They even got into this problem with cable back in the 80s - they're a mess.
The Oscars are somewhat different because I think in the 30s producers had ways to control the awards - Garbo/Rainer/Mayer for example - and I don't think they just changed overnight. In effect they are like the Golden Globes - sometimes they mattered, sometimes they didn't at all.......but for a stretch they mattered a great deal.
In the 90s that Hanks thing/Weinstein/Nicholson cycle started to feel like Oscars could be bought - Nicholson's 3 meant why not someone else getting 3 and that wasn't the same as Brennan imo who was just popular.
3 OTHER actors from Hanks generation got 2 Oscars pretty quick after him - which was unheard of - 4 from one generation all fast . People lost Oscars because they knocked somebody out.............people got nodded for Oscars because other stars threw parties for them........nods started to clearly resemble a pattern and a repeatable pattern that you could replicate: film X will get no nods because of who is distributing it - actor X will not win or get nodded if they don't campaign..........to the point now where the very machinery of guessing the nods sustains a whole industry itself (Gold Derby etc.).
Of course it's also the opposite of TV - no one knows what a film is, or if they can vote for a film/actor to win if they nominated it to begin with. I personally think it's going to result in a different shift where fewer movies get made which itself effects who gets nodded etc. We even know Oscar campaigners names how Lisa Taback is like a literal star herself.
Just my personal take on it..........ymmv but to me they don't all carry the same weight over their whole history.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jul 11, 2019 2:51:02 GMT
Let's pretend we're talking about a borderline role (like, say, Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained). Hypothetically, if you were an actor with a borderline role with arguments for being both Lead and Supporting, which category would you rather get nominated/win for? I mean, I'd rather win so I'd prefer to go in the category where I can win. In a year with DDL in Lincoln, I'd run Supporting. If the year had Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight instead, I'd run Lead. I do think that a leading Oscar holds more weight to actors, but I think things are changing a bit because there's been some high profile actresses that have won in supporting in recent times like Anne Hathaway, Renee Zellweger, and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Plus, with Viola Davis, she definitely wanted to win leading, but I think she was okay going supporting because at the time, it seemed like Best Actress might be too competitive and that she'd lose to Emma Stone or Natalie Portman, so she chose to go supporting because she had the better chance. Although in hindsight, I think she could have won in lead because Jackie didn't live up to the hype of some of the pundits who saw it early at Toronto, and I think she could have taken down Emma Stone in the end. Of course, Olivia Colman went the opposite way, and I thought it would cost her an Oscar, but she ended up winning. In general though, I think that actors want would rather win in leading but are okay with winning in supporting because at least they won an Oscar which in the end is the most important thing for them like some of those actors that have won in a category like Best Live Action Short Film. For me though, I agree with your sentiment that it's about what the actor won rather than what category they won in.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 11, 2019 3:32:58 GMT
I'm confused by the question, because obviously acting contenders and studios running campaigns will care about the distinction, but as a cinephile I value them both equally. Or rather, the distinction doesn't matter much to me beyond just being able to categorize something alongside other somethings. To me an acting win is an acting win, and when Meryl Streep became the first actress to win three Oscars I don't remember seeing an asterik indicating in tiny text that one of those was for a supporting role.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 11, 2019 3:38:03 GMT
Leading in general, because it's the highest of honors, especially if you have to carry a film on your shoulders, and are rewarded for it, but I do think morton , brings up a pretty good point here. I think in part the rise of major actors accepting supporting roles has to do with them realizing when that's the best option to win. I'm sure somebody like Viola Davis for example, would have loved to gotten nominated in the leading actress category for Fences, but she really just wants to be appreciated, regardless of the category. That's probably true for a lot of actors in general.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 11, 2019 3:41:48 GMT
I'm confused by the question, because obviously acting contenders and studios running campaigns will care about the distinction, but as a cinephile I value them both equally. Or rather, the distinction doesn't matter much to me beyond just being able to categorize something alongside other somethings. To me an acting win is an acting winWhat if someone said, "an Oscar win is an Oscar win," and suggested that a Sound Editing Oscar is just as valuable as a Best Picture Oscar? 1. She wasn't the first. Hepburn had 4 in Lead (though not all of them were outright wins). 2. And yet here we are, noting that one of her wins was for Supporting.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 11, 2019 4:00:32 GMT
I'm confused by the question, because obviously acting contenders and studios running campaigns will care about the distinction, but as a cinephile I value them both equally. Or rather, the distinction doesn't matter much to me beyond just being able to categorize something alongside other somethings. To me an acting win is an acting winWhat if someone said, "an Oscar win is an Oscar win," and suggested that a Sound Editing Oscar is just as valuable as a Best Picture Oscar? Come on now, you know that's a stupid comparison and no smart person would make it. Acting on film is functionally the same across all "categories", and it was the same before the Oscars were created to categorize things so the Academy could hand out awards. There are different kinds of actors who use different techniques to varying degrees of success. There are stars and character actors but on film they're all doing the same thing; pretending to be someone else on film. The quality of a performance hinges on the talent of the actor and the nature of the part. A well-written supporting role can trump a shitty lead any day. The Dark Knight is a peak example of that. That's why an acting win is an acting win, in my book anyways. I can't speak to how Goldie Hawn or George Burns feels about it. 2. And yet here we are, noting that one of her wins was for Supporting. In my case, to make a point that it doesn't matter and it didn't matter in early 2012 when she was winning her 3rd acting Oscar. I have no idea what point you're making.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 11, 2019 4:14:51 GMT
Come on now, you know that's a stupid comparison and no smart person would make it. It's actually a smart comparison and only a stupid person would call it stupid. I can play this game, too, so you might want to stick to arguing the point. None of this addresses the arguments I've made in favor of Lead over Supporting. 1. A Lead role is generally more important than a Supporting role. 2. The Lead category tends to be more competitive than the Supporting category, which is why outside contenders in Lead tend to be frauded into Supporting so they can make it in. The reverse is much rarer, and usually only happens when the Supporting performance is incredibly strong and would have won in the Supporting category too. 3. There is a clear preference for many actors to get nominated/win in Lead over Supporting. The point is that we all make the distinction. There was a lot of talk about One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Silence of the Lambs winning "the top 5" Oscars, so there is a perception that some categories mean more than the others. A lot was made about Daniel Day-Lewis winning a 3rd Oscar because all of his wins were in Lead, despite Nicholson having already won 3. I doubt Mahershala Ali winning a 3rd Supporting Oscar would gain as much attention.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 11, 2019 15:57:29 GMT
A leading performer may have to "carry" the whole movie. On the other hand, a supporting actor has fewer things to do and say so his performance has to distinguish among others. Sometimes, when you don't have much to do in front of the camera, it's very difficult to "shine".
Yes, a leading nod has more weight than the supporting one but that's all. I mean, a win is a win and an Oscar is an Oscar (acting of course). I value them equally, in the same way I value equally ie. original and adapted screenplay (even if, for the latter, the first material is already there).
Well, I'm a weirdo. I rank equally a BD nod and a BP nod, even though I know how different it is for directors.
What I cant stand at all is category frauds.
|
|
|
Post by Weaver Addict on Jul 11, 2019 17:30:24 GMT
Oh honey, lead of course! But I don't expect you to agree with me since you're all in supporting...
Spoken like a true Movie Star.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 11, 2019 18:06:30 GMT
Come on now, you know that's a stupid comparison and no smart person would make it. It's actually a smart comparison and only a stupid person would call it stupid. No, it's a stupid comparison because the categories involve different elements and require different skills. The comparison you're making--lead vs. supporting roles--is much more comparable to say adapted screenplay vs. original screenplay, or sound editing vs. sound mixing (although that's perhaps straying a bit farther). There are distinctions within those fields obviously but they all serve the same functional purpose--actors to perform, writers to provide dialogue and story, sound designers/editors/mixers to create the aural landscape of the film. So no, any Oscar win isn't the same as any other Oscar win, not in the same way that acting wins across categories are functionally the same or writings wins too for that matter. 1. That's generally true but not always the case. The Dark Knight, The Untouchables, JFK, are examples of times where supporting roles/performances have a lot more meat on their bones than the leads, and if I really did some digging I could probably find 50 more in a few minutes. 2. Yeah that's true. But it's not something I care about or think about that much. In thinking about the question you posed in the OP, I considered really only two things: how I feel about the question when considering my own lineups, and thinking about my own knowledge of Oscar history (it's not been my experience that I remember leading wins more than supporting wins and I've always granted wins the same level of importance for as long as I can remember). It seems that you're coming at the question from an entirely different angle. And I suppose from your angle you're right, but I can only speak for me and to me they're functionally the same. 3. Sure. Has nothing to do with my as cinephile from the sidelines though. And when you posed the question you asked which category I as an individual valued more, not what I think industry people value more. I actually just rewatched Silence of the Lambs last night and agree that Hopkins is actually supporting, but that doesn't diminish his impact on the film or the greatness of his performance, it just means that the film isn't framed around his POV.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jul 11, 2019 20:31:41 GMT
It's actually a smart comparison and only a stupid person would call it stupid. No, it's a stupid comparison because the categories involve different elements and require different skills. The comparison you're making--lead vs. supporting roles--is much more comparable to say adapted screenplay vs. original screenplay, or sound editing vs. sound mixing (although that's perhaps straying a bit farther). There are distinctions within those fields obviously but they all serve the same functional purpose--actors to perform, writers to provide dialogue and story, sound designers/editors/mixers to create the aural landscape of the film. So no, any Oscar win isn't the same as any other Oscar win, not in the same way that acting wins across categories are functionally the same or writings wins too for that matter. 1. That's generally true but not always the case. The Dark Knight, The Untouchables, JFK, are examples of times where supporting roles/performances have a lot more meat on their bones than the leads, and if I really did some digging I could probably find 50 more in a few minutes. 2. Yeah that's true. But it's not something I care about or think about that much. In thinking about the question you posed in the OP, I considered really only two things: how I feel about the question when considering my own lineups, and thinking about my own knowledge of Oscar history (it's not been my experience that I remember leading wins more than supporting wins and I've always granted wins the same level of importance for as long as I can remember). It seems that you're coming at the question from an entirely different angle. And I suppose from your angle you're right, but I can only speak for me and to me they're functionally the same. 3. Sure. Has nothing to do with my as cinephile from the sidelines though. And when you posed the question you asked which category I as an individual valued more, not what I think industry people value more. I actually just rewatched Silence of the Lambs last night and agree that Hopkins is actually supporting, but that doesn't diminish his impact on the film or the greatness of his performance, it just means that the film isn't framed around his POV. 1. True. Like I know Best Supporting Actor had a great streak from 2007-2009 where three iconic roles won, and I think that the performances that those films are from will always be remembered first rather than anything else in the films. Same with Mo'Nique in Precious and J.K. Simmons in Whiplash. 2. & 3. Outside of the industry and people like us that are obsessed with awards, I really don't think it's that big of a deal later on because the general public has such a short memory that as long as someone has won an Oscar for acting that's all they'll really remember down the line, if they even remember at all. Like I could see people remembering that Leonardo DiCaprio won because he's a big star, but does the average schmoe know or care that Daniel Day-Lewis won 3 leading acting Oscars. Or with Anne Hathaway, if she never wins a leading Oscar, I doubt they'll remember that she only won in supporting. All that most will remember is that she won an Oscar. Of course, obviously in the industry it's a big thing, but as I said before at the end of the day, I don't think it matters as much which category an actor won in. Sure they'd love to win leading, but for the most part, a win is a win now, and if they can win in Supporting rather than Leading then most of the time they'll go that route. Plus, there can be bad wins in any category just as their can be great wins in any category.
|
|