Lead vs Supporting nomination/win: Which is more valuable? Jul 11, 2019 22:41:39 GMT
Post by Good God on Jul 11, 2019 22:41:39 GMT
No, you're stupid to find it stupid, because my point was never that the elements and skills required are different for Lead and Supporting roles. My point was only that just because both the awards are for the same craft doesn't mean they have to have the same value. Kind of like just because the statues for Sound Editing and Best Picture are the same doesn't mean they have to have the same value. The only value any award holds is perceived and if you're going to grant that a Lead role is generally more important than a Supporting role (just like a Director is more important than a Sound Editor), you have an argument right there that Lead > Supporting. Just because you're going to simplistically stick to the craft in question and nothing else, it doesn't mean other perspectives are stupid. You're stupid for claiming that.
I never said that's always the case. I only said it's generally the case. So you're in agreement with my argument.
1. That's generally true but not always the case.
I think you've misunderstood the question. The question isn't if you consider Lead nominations/wins from your personal lineups to be more valuable than Supporting nominations/wins from your personal lineups. The question is if you consider Lead nominations/wins from awards bodies to be more valuable than Supporting nominations/wins from awards bodies. And when it comes to awards bodies, Lead categories are generally more competitive than Supporting categories.
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.
I didn't ask you which category you valued more. I asked which category of nominations/wins from awards bodies you valued more. Any value that awards hold is largely due to perception (there are no laws claiming that Oscars > Golden Globes, for instance, but I think we'd all value Oscars over Golden Globes in large part due to their perceived value), so I think general perception is a very relevant factor as far as this thread is concerned.
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 don't think anybody has argued that a performance is diminished if it is Supporting. I, among others, have only argued that for the same performance from the same movie, I'd rather be nominated/win in Lead than in Supporting (everything else being the same).
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.