|
Post by stephen on Sept 29, 2019 17:20:12 GMT
So there is no precedent and this is just conjecture based on nothing. There is no precedent, to this situation, correct. That I can recall at least..... It is more a "gut feeling" I'd say than conjecture .........I love the dude, but to pretend that it's always a level playing field and all that isn't really true.......you can't say "he should beat Pitt because he's a legend, he should have 5 Oscars blah blah blah" and then discount all the acclaim he's gotten in being a legend to start with which is known and common knowledge.........it's part of the landscape........ I gotta say, this feels like you're just trying to beef up Pacino's cred. He's an acting legend, that much is true, but most voters don't care or even know that he's won Tonys and Emmys before and put zero stock in the Triple Crown. If they did, Glenn Close would've won last year. If they vote for Pacino, it's because of his status as a cinematic legend first and foremost (well, that and the performance itself).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 29, 2019 17:28:22 GMT
I gotta say, this feels like you're just trying to beef up Pacino's cred. He's an acting legend, that much is true, but most voters don't care or even know that he's won Tonys and Emmys before and put zero stock in the Triple Crown. If they did, Glenn Close would've won last year. If they vote for Pacino, it's because of his status as a cinematic legend first and foremost (well, that and the performance itself). You guys are taking the "Triple Crown" too seriously, my fault for referencing it - just take it out, forget I said it - the point is he's 79 and has won a lot of awards and people know he won a lot and may not feel the need to keep rewarding him.............. If that makes intuitive sense to you great........if not, we just see it different.......no big deal. Oh and Glenn Close precisely doesn't apply - they may of thought she never got one because she never deserved one - that does not correlate to the Pacino example ..........at all tbh.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 29, 2019 17:33:02 GMT
There is no precedent, to this situation, correct. That I can recall at least..... It is more a "gut feeling" I'd say than conjecture .........I love the dude, but to pretend that it's always a level playing field and all that isn't really true.......you can't say "he should beat Pitt because he's a legend, he should have 5 Oscars blah blah blah" and then discount all the acclaim he's gotten in being a legend to start with which is known and common knowledge.........it's part of the landscape........ I gotta say, this feels like you're just trying to beef up Pacino's cred. He's an acting legend, that much is true, but most voters don't care or even know that he's won Tonys and Emmys before and put zero stock in the Triple Crown. If they did, Glenn Close would've won last year. If they vote for Pacino, it's because of his status as a cinematic legend first and foremost (well, that and the performance itself). We have a winner. It's gonna be a long season of this.
|
|
filmnoir
Full Member
Posts: 820
Likes: 408
|
Post by filmnoir on Sept 29, 2019 17:36:14 GMT
Has there ever been an instance when TV and Stage awards made Oscar voters decide not to vote for somebody? I can't for the life of me understand why that would matter. I actually think it could have the opposite effect. Regina King was nominated for 4 Emmy's in a row - won 3. This was just in the last few years. So it certainly put her work in front of the industry, even though she hadn't made a film in several years.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 29, 2019 17:36:58 GMT
I gotta say, this feels like you're just trying to beef up Pacino's cred. He's an acting legend, that much is true, but most voters don't care or even know that he's won Tonys and Emmys before and put zero stock in the Triple Crown. If they did, Glenn Close would've won last year. If they vote for Pacino, it's because of his status as a cinematic legend first and foremost (well, that and the performance itself). We have a winner. It's gonna be a long season of this. You're welcome to go back to Gold Derby and leave - I'm sure you won't be missed here loser........ Distain (purpducs) Jan 30 2017 on Gold Derby : 5:53 AM You think Al Pacino is crying himself to sleep that he robbed Denzel of an Oscar for Malcolm X, or just happy that he has an Oscar, when he probably deserves 5 of them.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 29, 2019 17:38:26 GMT
Pacino's main issue is really strong internal competition. Saw a reviewer today touting Pesci for the supporting Oscar win, so that may become an issue. At least it's only two of them, instead of three like Django Unchained. But he'll likely be splitting support with his co-star. Pitt may coast his way to a pretty easy victory almost by default, as almost everyone being touted as his "competition" already has an acting Oscar (Pacino, Pesci, Hanks, Hopkins, Foxx etc), and he's considered overdue for an acting Oscar. Dafoe has the overdue narrative also, but it remains to be seen if his film will have enough appeal to propel him strongly into the race as it looks very uncommercial. I think that Pacino will be the friendlier, showier option for the Academy. I'd liken it to Three Billboards in that you have the obvious showcase in Rockwell, but Harrelson was still doing strong work that the critics liked, but it's clear which one appealed more to voters. I'd also say that Pesci's retirement and general laconic nature might not favor him; Pacino's far more of a campaigner and his stature in the industry is greater than Pesci's, and he's definitely the sort of actor who you could argue they'd fall over themselves to reward with a second Oscar.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 29, 2019 17:38:37 GMT
Has there ever been an instance when TV and Stage awards made Oscar voters decide not to vote for somebody? I can't for the life of me understand why that would matter. I actually think it could have the opposite effect. Regina King was nominated for 4 Emmy's in a row - won 3. This was just in the last few years. So it certainly put her work in front of the industry, even though she hadn't made a film in several years. Exactly! It's silly to assume actors don't know the scope and work of their peers - in some cases it can be a help and in other cases a hindrance.......
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 29, 2019 17:47:00 GMT
We have a winner. It's gonna be a long season of this. You're welcome to go back to Gold Derby and leave - I'm sure you won't be missed here loser........ Distain (purpducs) Jan 30 2017 on Gold Derby : 5:53 AM You think Al Pacino is crying himself to sleep that he robbed Denzel of an Oscar for Malcolm X, or just happy that he has an Oscar, when he probably deserves 5 of them. Shouldn't you be be busy faking views for your thread or something? Also, nice to see ElMaurecan82 (who totally isn't you ) back on Awardswatch spreading the gospel about Pacino and the "Big 4" and all that stuff you totally never talk about. B-but, but...I don't have any other names....lol! People in glass houses, dude. You are the most dishonest person on this board, by miles. Quit while you are behind with this triple crown bullshit, Mr Liar McLiarpants.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 29, 2019 17:54:38 GMT
You're welcome to go back to Gold Derby and leave - I'm sure you won't be missed here loser........ Distain (purpducs) Jan 30 2017 on Gold Derby : 5:53 AM You think Al Pacino is crying himself to sleep that he robbed Denzel of an Oscar for Malcolm X, or just happy that he has an Oscar, when he probably deserves 5 of them. Shouldn't you be be busy faking views for your thread or something? Also, nice to see ElMaurecan82 (who totally isn't you ) back on Awardswatch spreading the gospel about Pacino and the "Big 4" and all that stuff you totally never talk about. B-but, but...I don't have any other names....lol! People in glass houses, dude. You are the most dishonest person on this board, by miles. Quit while you are behind with this triple crown bullshit, Mr Liar McLiarpants. Never have even gone on Awardswatch............like never EVER gone to that site, and the only time I went on Gold Derby was to pull your insane quotes when 50 people IM'd me that you had a breakdown on there..... never posted anywhere but here and IMDB in my life.
One name, pacinoyes........I'm sure you'll remember it go complain to a moderator, you f'n bore me, you bore all of us like Equalizer 2.......did I stutter?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 29, 2019 17:56:46 GMT
Pacino's main issue is really strong internal competition. Saw a reviewer today touting Pesci for the supporting Oscar win, so that may become an issue. At least it's only two of them, instead of three like Django Unchained. But he'll likely be splitting support with his co-star. Pitt may coast his way to a pretty easy victory almost by default, as almost everyone being touted as his "competition" already has an acting Oscar (Pacino, Pesci, Hanks, Hopkins, Foxx etc), and he's considered overdue for an acting Oscar. Dafoe has the overdue narrative also, but it remains to be seen if his film will have enough appeal to propel him strongly into the race as it looks very uncommercial. I think that Pacino will be the friendlier, showier option for the Academy. I'd liken it to Three Billboards in that you have the obvious showcase in Rockwell, but Harrelson was still doing strong work that the critics liked, but it's clear which one appealed more to voters. I'd also say that Pesci's retirement and general laconic nature might not favor him; Pacino's far more of a campaigner and his stature in the industry is greater than Pesci's, and he's definitely the sort of actor who you could argue they'd fall over themselves to reward with a second Oscar.
I can mostly agree with this. And Pesci doesn't strike me as someone willing to do much campaigning beyond contractual obligations. It seemed like pulling teeth to even get him in the movie. But I still think it's been a massive stroke of good fortune for Pitt that most of his competition have Oscars already. His reviews for Ad Astra well (which I saw you disagreed with) has kind of set it up to be "his year".
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 29, 2019 18:04:35 GMT
Shouldn't you be be busy faking views for your thread or something? Also, nice to see ElMaurecan82 (who totally isn't you ) back on Awardswatch spreading the gospel about Pacino and the "Big 4" and all that stuff you totally never talk about. B-but, but...I don't have any other names....lol! People in glass houses, dude. You are the most dishonest person on this board, by miles. Quit while you are behind with this triple crown bullshit, Mr Liar McLiarpants. Never have even gone on Awardswatch............like never EVER gone to that site, and the only time I went on Gold Derby was to pull your insane quotes when 50 people IM'd me that you had a breakdown on there..... never posted anywhere but here and IMDB in my life.
One name, pacinoyes........I'm sure you'll remember it go complain to a moderator, you f'n bore me, you bore all of us like Equalizer 2.......did I stutter? Still lying, huh! Anyone with a functioning brain that knows you, knows that's you currently on The Irishman thread on that board if they read it. Not that anyone actually gives a damn what name you post under in different forums, but you kinda made a big play with the righteous "one name" nonsense, so it's certainly amusing. People have mostly gotten over you faking 20,000 views for your acting thread, for whatever bizarre reason. No one will give a fuck if you wanna call yourself El Camino and hype Pacino on another board. Do your thing, bro!
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 29, 2019 18:07:29 GMT
Exactly! It's silly to assume actors don't know the scope and work of their peers - in some cases it can be a help and in other cases a hindrance....... LOL, nice try spinning an argument against you into a point in your favor. I'm perfectly willing to admit that your good work outside of Film can help your chances at the Oscars. That it will hurt it is backward logic, and that's the only thing I questioned.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 29, 2019 18:09:05 GMT
Shouldn't you be be busy faking views for your thread or something? I thought I'd already mentioned that I was the one faking views in response to you faking views on your thread?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 29, 2019 18:15:16 GMT
Ah.........this is your thing again so boring - you and your buddies click on a thread 2,000 times and the say I did it. Right. You lose a poll 31 to F'N 1 or something and then say you 'really" proved something. Right. You're on every message board and social media so I must be also because people my age do that. Right. You say I said things but when asked for a screenshot, you don't have it. Right. You tell people to "look something up" like they will know it's me, but I assure you it's not me. Right. You're a laughingstock on this board and insist on coming back for more. There are whole threads devoted to you on here and your mental illness. Go call a moderator you big baby. Viced -you can delete this sh*t if you want obviously I'm done with him
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 29, 2019 18:19:37 GMT
Shouldn't you be be busy faking views for your thread or something? I thought I'd already mentioned that I was the one faking views in response to you faking views on your thread? Which you immediately said after I replied was just a "ruse" to prove I wasn't ignoring you (it did make you look insane, so I can understand the retraction. Now it's the truth again, huh ).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 29, 2019 18:20:19 GMT
Exactly! It's silly to assume actors don't know the scope and work of their peers - in some cases it can be a help and in other cases a hindrance....... LOL, nice try spinning an argument against you into a point in your favor. I'm perfectly willing to admit that your good work outside of Film can help your chances at the Oscars. That it will hurt it is backward logic, and that's the only thing I questioned.Yeah I get what you and people are saying - I don't think I phrased it well ........ normally it would be backwards logic without the caveat of the age - usually people 79 are not nominated for Oscars and if they are they don't have one already like him etc. I'd have to look it up but I would guess he'd be the oldest "2 time" winner for males etc. if it happened.......
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 29, 2019 18:21:48 GMT
Which you immediately said after I replied was just a "ruse" to prove I wasn't ignoring you (it did make you look insane, so I can understand the retraction. Now it's the truth again, huh I never said it was a "ruse". Is this another of your delusions?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 29, 2019 18:24:00 GMT
Ah.........this is your thing again so boring - you and your buddies click on a thread 2,000 times and the say I did it. Right. You lose a poll 31 to F'N 1 or something and then say you 'really" proved something. Right. You're on every message board and social media so I must be also because people my age do that. Right. You say I said things but when asked for a screenshot, you don't have it. Right. You tell people to "look something up" like they will know it's me, but I assure you it's not me. Right. You're a laughingstock on this board and insist on coming back for more. There are whole threads devoted to you on here and your mental illness. Go call a moderator you big baby. Viced -you can delete this sh*t if you want obviously I'm done with him Sure thing El Camino. I'm bored by your lies, so that makes two of us.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 29, 2019 18:30:11 GMT
Which you immediately said after I replied was just a "ruse" to prove I wasn't ignoring you (it did make you look insane, so I can understand the retraction. Now it's the truth again, huh I never said it was a "ruse". Is this another of your delusions? Whatever. You spent a good few weeks claiming it was me and my undercover CIA operatives doing the deed to frame ya boy before your sudden "confession", so your relationship with "telling the truth" has as much viability as it does with El Camino.Both of you make a splendid couple. Now let's get this thread back on track.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Sept 29, 2019 18:32:12 GMT
Pacino's main issue is really strong internal competition. Saw a reviewer today touting Pesci for the supporting Oscar win, so that may become an issue. At least it's only two of them, instead of three like Django Unchained. But he'll likely be splitting support with his co-star. Pitt may coast his way to a pretty easy victory almost by default, as almost everyone being touted as his "competition" already has an acting Oscar (Pacino, Pesci, Hanks, Hopkins, Foxx etc), and he's considered overdue for an acting Oscar. Dafoe has the overdue narrative also, but it remains to be seen if his film will have enough appeal to propel him strongly into the race as it looks very uncommercial. I wonder if "slap the stud" syndrome will hurt Pitt any though. That shirtless scene may have wowed audiences, but I could see that working against him for some voters who feel he still hasn't reached the Newman stage of his career. Has there ever been an instance when TV and Stage awards made Oscar voters decide not to vote for somebody? I can't for the life of me understand why that would matter. I actually think it could have the opposite effect. Regina King was nominated for 4 Emmy's in a row - won 3. This was just in the last few years. So it certainly put her work in front of the industry, even though she hadn't made a film in several years. Yes, I said this last year before I changed my mind after Close won SAG, but I wasn't sure if she had enough momentum to win the Oscar because it had been awhile since she had been in anything. With Moore, she had been in Game Change just a short time before and swept all the top prizes that year and also had been in Best Picture nominee The Kids Are Alright with possibly the Best Actress runner-up, and in A Single Man a year before that with the BAFTA Best Actor winner, so younger voters were familiar with her. So I think that Pacino doing television and winning all those Emmys will help not hurt him unlike Pesci whose been absent from the industry for quite awhile. Although I do think that The Irishman will be strong enough for both to be nominated, but I'm guessing that the industry will just default to Pacino. The critics might go for Pesci, or maybe both like regionals go for Pacino, and the coasts go for Pesci maybe?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 29, 2019 18:35:28 GMT
Whatever. You spent a good few weeks claiming it was me and my undercover CIA operatives doing the deed to frame ya boy before your sudden "confession", so your relationship with "telling the truth" has as much viability as it does with El Camino.LOL, why would I lie that I faked the thread views? Do you want me to run my script and rack up another 100 views to prove that it was me? Because I can do it, anytime I love how you start with your conspiracy theories about how I post on Gold Derby and somebody else posts on Awards Watch when you're getting your butt handed to you. I guess even delusional lunatics have their defense mechanisms.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 29, 2019 18:38:34 GMT
I wonder if "slap the stud" syndrome will hurt Pitt any though. That shirtless scene may have wowed audiences, but I could see that working against him for some voters who feel he still hasn't reached the Newman stage of his career. At 56 years of age, I think Pitt is far past that point. With the highly publicized personal problems he's had over the last couple of years, I can even see him having a rooting factor with an underdog/comeback narrative.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Sept 29, 2019 18:48:42 GMT
It doesn’t matter at all for Pacino’s chances that Pesci is getting great ink unless he’s actually nominated. And I’m still not sure that’s going to happen. This is a crazy year for Supporting Actor, so we’ll see what happens there.
Pacino is one of the only actors of his legendary stature to only have one Oscar. DeNiro, Brando, Hackman, Hoffman, Nicholson, ect all have two or three. Washington and Hanks as well. Not only do I think the fact that he’s won won’t mean much, I think a smart distributor could actually push a narrative for him being due for another. He’s never even been nominated for SAG, let alone won, for instance.
Everything I’ve read suggests to me that Pacino has a much more showy, Oscar friendly part than Pitt. I think it comes down to these two and will depend on who has the stronger vehicle and who campaigns more. As long as Pacino avoids the internal comp potential issue, I think his chances are nearly on par with Pitt’s for the win.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 29, 2019 18:53:44 GMT
It doesn’t matter at all for Pacino’s chances that Pesci is getting great ink unless he’s actually nominated. And I’m still not sure that’s going to happen. This is a crazy year for Supporting Actor, so we’ll see what happens there. Pacino is one of the only actors of his legendary stature to only have one Oscar. DeNiro, Brando, Hackman, Hoffman, Nicholson, ect all have two or three. Washington and Hanks as well. Not only do I think the fact that he’s won won’t mean much, I think a smart distributor could actually push a narrative for him being due for another. He’s never even been nominated for SAG, let alone won, for instance.
Everything I’ve read suggests to me that Pacino has a much more showy, Oscar friendly part than Pitt. I think it comes down to these two and will depend on who has the stronger vehicle and who campaigns more. As long as Pacino avoids the internal comp potential issue, I think his chances are nearly on par with Pitt’s for the win. Good post - just to be clear no SAG film nods, but 2 wins for TV............
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 29, 2019 18:57:41 GMT
I can't remember the last time there was actual Oscar discussion about Pacino. Since 1992 I mean... And after all these years we really talking about it! Yeah, that feels good
|
|