|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 17:15:36 GMT
Hey man, I'd love to live in a world where Joe Pesci has two Oscars. I just think that if I had to choose between loud and bombastic and quiet and ruminative in terms of what the Academy will gravitate towards, I'd usually go for the former.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 17:20:54 GMT
Hey man, I'd love to live in a world where Joe Pesci has two Oscars. I just think that if I had to choose between loud and bombastic and quiet and ruminative in terms of what the Academy will gravitate towards, I'd usually go for the former. They gave Mark Rylance an Oscar for in the words of Michael Shannon, "doing nothing". You are smarter than this Stephen, and you know it doesn't work like that. They are perfectly willing to reward ruminative performances these days. If consensus starts to build that Pesci is best in show, Pacino is in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 17:32:15 GMT
Hey man, I'd love to live in a world where Joe Pesci has two Oscars. I just think that if I had to choose between loud and bombastic and quiet and ruminative in terms of what the Academy will gravitate towards, I'd usually go for the former. They gave Mark Rylance an Oscar for in the words of Michael Shannon, "doing nothing". You are smarter than this Stephen, and you know it doesn't work like that. They are perfectly willing to reward ruminative performances these days. If consensus starts to build that Pesci is best in show, Pacino is in trouble. Michael Shannon is an idiot. And Rylance wasn't competing against anyone else in his own film. I'm simply stating that if you have two performances in the same film getting attention in the same category, standard practice is to bet on the louder, showier turn because that's what usually wins out.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 17:45:41 GMT
They gave Mark Rylance an Oscar for in the words of Michael Shannon, "doing nothing". You are smarter than this Stephen, and you know it doesn't work like that. They are perfectly willing to reward ruminative performances these days. If consensus starts to build that Pesci is best in show, Pacino is in trouble. Michael Shannon is an idiot. And Rylance wasn't competing against anyone else in his own film. I'm simply stating that if you have two performances in the same film getting attention in the same category, standard practice is to bet on the louder, showier turn because that's what usually wins out. I know you want to win this debate Stephen (I understand, conceding isn't fun), but I have to disagree. Django Unchained....Dicaprio and Jackson were to me showier turns than Waltz, but we know who got it there. I'd also counter that part of the reason Pacino hasn't been nominated in 27 years is that the whole "loud and showy" thing is schtick for him at this point. It's expected. Pesci seems to be going wildly against type, which may be what may be impressing people. We've seen him do loud and obnoxious in everything from Goodfellas, Casino, My Cousin Vinny, Lethal Weapon. That's his usual schtick. Pesci doing quiet and ruminative may actually be what gives him the edge. Pacino seems to be playing to type. Pesci seems to be playing against type. Academy voters like when actors stretch and show a different aspect to what they normally expect.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 17:47:58 GMT
Michael Shannon is an idiot. And Rylance wasn't competing against anyone else in his own film. I'm simply stating that if you have two performances in the same film getting attention in the same category, standard practice is to bet on the louder, showier turn because that's what usually wins out. I know you want to win this debate Stephen (I understand, conceding isn't fun), but I have to disagree. Django Unchained....Dicaprio and Jackson were to me showier turns than Waltz, but we know who got it there. I'd also counter that part of the reason Pacino hasn't been nominated in 27 years is that the whole "loud and showy" thing is schtick for him at this point. It's expected. Pesci seems to be going wildly against type, which may be what may be impressing people. We've seen him do loud and obnoxious in everything from Goodfellas, Casino, My Cousin Vinny, Lethal Weapon. That's his usual schtick. Pesci doing quiet and ruminative may actually be what gives him the edge. Pacino seems to be playing to type. Pesci seems to be playing against type. I'm referring to nominated performances. Once Jackson and DiCaprio missed, they became a non-factor. And Waltz had the advantage of much more screentime than either of them, seeing as he was co-lead. Look at times where multiple people were nominated in the same category for the same film. Any time there was a winner, it was almost always the louder, showier turn.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 17:55:24 GMT
I know you want to win this debate Stephen (I understand, conceding isn't fun), but I have to disagree. Django Unchained....Dicaprio and Jackson were to me showier turns than Waltz, but we know who got it there. I'd also counter that part of the reason Pacino hasn't been nominated in 27 years is that the whole "loud and showy" thing is schtick for him at this point. It's expected. Pesci seems to be going wildly against type, which may be what may be impressing people. We've seen him do loud and obnoxious in everything from Goodfellas, Casino, My Cousin Vinny, Lethal Weapon. That's his usual schtick. Pesci doing quiet and ruminative may actually be what gives him the edge. Pacino seems to be playing to type. Pesci seems to be playing against type. I'm referring to nominated performances. Once Jackson and DiCaprio missed, they became a non-factor. And Waltz had the advantage of much more screentime than either of them, seeing as he was co-lead. Look at times where multiple people were nominated in the same category for the same film. Any time there was a winner, it was almost always the louder, showier turn.
It hasnt happened often enough in recent history to be be a much of a factor, imho. And honestly....I'm not saying Pacino will miss, but people seem awfully confident that a bunch of films will all produce multiple acting nominees. Scorsese films (like Tarantino films) often secure one acting nomination.There will be snubs. Some big ones. A Pesci surge threatens a Pacino nod, never mind a win.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 18:00:12 GMT
I'm referring to nominated performances. Once Jackson and DiCaprio missed, they became a non-factor. And Waltz had the advantage of much more screentime than either of them, seeing as he was co-lead. Look at times where multiple people were nominated in the same category for the same film. Any time there was a winner, it was almost always the louder, showier turn.
It hasnt happened often enough in recent history to be be a much of a factor, imho. And honestly....I'm not saying Pacino will miss, but people seem awfully confident that a bunch of films will all produce multiple acting nominees. Scorsese films (like Tarantino films) often secure one acting nomination.There will be snubs. Some big ones. A Pesci surge threatens a Pacino nod, never mind a win. It's happened often enough in the last thirty-odd years to draw a trend. Of films where two people were nominated in the same category for the same film that produced a winner:
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri: Sam Rockwell won for a louder, showier performance than Woody Harrelson.
The Fighter: Melissa Leo won for a louder, showier turn than Amy Adams.
Chicago: Catherine Zeta-Jones won for a louder, showier turn than Queen Latifah.
Bullets Over Broadway: They were both pretty loud and showy in this, but I'd still say Dianne Wiest won for being louder and showier than Jennifer Tilly.
Amadeus: Your mileage may vary on who was louder and who was showier in this one, but Salieri does have the edge in terms of being the more complex character.
Terms of Endearment: Jack Nicholson won for a louder, showier turn than John Lithgow. Not just that, but Shirley MacLaine was also louder and arguably showier when she beat Debra Winger (an overdue factor also applied).
Tootsie: Jessica Lange won for a banner year, as well as being louder and showier than Teri Garr.
Ordinary People: Timothy Hutton won for a louder, showier, longer turn than Judd Hirsch.
Screentime and showiness definitely are a factor in play. Quieter performances can often be overshadowed. That's why they need some sort of hook to keep them on the voter's mind. Pesci is getting fantastic ink and I think he's certainly in play for a nomination . . . but Pacino's ink is equally as good, and he has the louder, showier, more vitally important role in the story.
I'm thinking that both get in at this point, but I think if I had to bet on one of them missing, it's Pesci. He just isn't about the campaign trail life.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Sept 30, 2019 18:02:00 GMT
They gave Mark Rylance an Oscar for in the words of Michael Shannon, "doing nothing". You are smarter than this Stephen, and you know it doesn't work like that. They are perfectly willing to reward ruminative performances these days. If consensus starts to build that Pesci is best in show, Pacino is in trouble. Michael Shannon is an idiot. And Rylance wasn't competing against anyone else in his own film. I'm simply stating that if you have two performances in the same film getting attention in the same category, standard practice is to bet on the louder, showier turn because that's what usually wins out. Yes, and also that was a really strange year for the category with the SAG winner not even being nominated at the Oscars. Stallone just had too much baggage. Bale was already a winner. Hardy was a coattail. Ruffalo just never had enough traction to be in the mix for the win despite being in the strongest film. Also with Ruffalo some of it might have been that he's more liked than Keaton, but on paper Keaton made the most sense, imo, as someone who gets a makeup nomination especially after he won NYFCC, but the industry obviously preferred the louder performance there too.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 30, 2019 18:02:18 GMT
Pupdurcs saying Pacino is in trouble... It's confirmed then. Big Al will win his second Just kidding...
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 18:03:56 GMT
Michael Shannon is an idiot. And Rylance wasn't competing against anyone else in his own film. I'm simply stating that if you have two performances in the same film getting attention in the same category, standard practice is to bet on the louder, showier turn because that's what usually wins out. Yes, and also that was a really strange year for the category with the SAG winner not even being nominated at the Oscars. Stallone just had too much baggage. Bale was already a winner. Hardy was a coattail. Ruffalo just never had enough traction to be in the mix for the win despite being in the strongest film. Also with Ruffalo some of it might have been that he's more liked than Keaton, but on paper Keaton made the most sense, imo, as someone who gets a makeup nomination especially after he won NYFCC, but the industry obviously preferred the louder performance there too. It can also be argued that Elba won SAG over Rylance because of the Oscar snub. The timing bears that out -- SAG voting was in its final days, and I think support and goodwill for Elba in reaction to it got him over the hurdle.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 18:07:32 GMT
Pupdurcs saying Pacino is in trouble... It's confirmed then. Big Al will win his second Just kidding... Shit, the Pacino Squad is gonna be on my case Al is great. If he gets nominated and/or wins, fantastic. His career deserves more than one Oscar, and I can see why people are rooting for him. But y'know, it's still September and I think there are still interesting conversations to be had other than "rah-rah, Pacino's got in in the bag, or Pitt has got this. I mean, last week Hanks was potentially winning number 3. Now he's an also ran So don't be sensitive Pacino people. Nothing personal. Just spitballing and conversation.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 30, 2019 18:12:49 GMT
Pacino playing Jimmy Hoffa in a Scorsese movie: "It's his usual shtick."
Murphy playing Rudy Ray Moore in a comedy: "Comeback performance for a living legend!"
Keep 'em coming!
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 30, 2019 18:17:30 GMT
Al is great. If he gets nominated and/or wins, fantastic. His career deserves more than one Oscar, and I can see why people are rooting for him. But y'know, it's still September and I think there are still interesting conversations to be had other than "rah-rah, Pacino's got in in the bag, or Pitt has got this. I mean, last week Hanks was potentially winning number 3. Now he's an also ran So don't be sensitive Pacino people. Nothing personal. Just spitballing and conversation. Are straw mans all you can do now? 1. Who here said Hanks was potentially winning number 3 and now suddenly thinks he's an also-ran? 2. Who here said, "rah-rah, Pacino's got this in the bag"? 3. Who here said, "Pitt has got this"? It seems to me like these are all voices in your head, because nobody here has made any such definite statements.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 18:23:43 GMT
Al is great. If he gets nominated and/or wins, fantastic. His career deserves more than one Oscar, and I can see why people are rooting for him. But y'know, it's still September and I think there are still interesting conversations to be had other than "rah-rah, Pacino's got in in the bag, or Pitt has got this. I mean, last week Hanks was potentially winning number 3. Now he's an also ran So don't be sensitive Pacino people. Nothing personal. Just spitballing and conversation. Are straw mans all you can do now? 1. Who here said Hanks was potentially winning number 3 and now suddenly thinks he's an also-ran? 2. Who here said, "rah-rah, Pacino's got this in the bag"? 3. Who here said, "Pitt has got this"? It seems to me like these are all voices in your head, because nobody here has made any such definite statements. What part of "I don't want to have any meaningfull conversations with you", do you seem to not understand? I can still help you with the obsessive compulsive disorder stuff if you want it.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 30, 2019 18:24:48 GMT
I'm not Denzel Washington, so you can quit with the kisses, they're creeping me out.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 18:25:37 GMT
I'm not Denzel Washington, so you can quit with the kisses, they're creeping me out.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 30, 2019 18:26:39 GMT
Al is great. If he gets nominated and/or wins, fantastic. His career deserves more than one Oscar, and I can see why people are rooting for him. But y'know, it's still September and I think there are still interesting conversations to be had other than "rah-rah, Pacino's got in in the bag, or Pitt has got this. I mean, last week Hanks was potentially winning number 3. Now he's an also ran So don't be sensitive Pacino people. Nothing personal. Just spitballing and conversation. Are straw mans all you can do now? 1. Who here said Hanks was potentially winning number 3 and now suddenly thinks he's an also-ran? 2. Who here said, "rah-rah, Pacino's got this in the bag"? 3. Who here said, "Pitt has got this"? It seems to me like these are all voices in your head, because nobody here has made any such definite statements. lol, classic .......it's going to be a long season.......personally I want to see Pesci win, go up on stage, say nothing but with a sign that says "Than........" and walk off.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Sept 30, 2019 18:35:25 GMT
Yes, and also that was a really strange year for the category with the SAG winner not even being nominated at the Oscars. Stallone just had too much baggage. Bale was already a winner. Hardy was a coattail. Ruffalo just never had enough traction to be in the mix for the win despite being in the strongest film. Also with Ruffalo some of it might have been that he's more liked than Keaton, but on paper Keaton made the most sense, imo, as someone who gets a makeup nomination especially after he won NYFCC, but the industry obviously preferred the louder performance there too. It can also be argued that Elba won SAG over Rylance because of the Oscar snub. The timing bears that out -- SAG voting was in its final days, and I think support and goodwill for Elba in reaction to it got him over the hurdle. Oh I definitely think so especially with the #Oscarssowhite being such a major storyline once the nominations came out. Plus, SAG gave the random ensemble nomination to Beasts of No Nation despite there being only 3 actors listed in the ensemble, and two of them were unknown. I think that being snubbed also helped Emily Blunt win SAG this year too. Partly the snub, and partly because of maybe strategic voting from people who wanted King to win the Oscar but didn't want any of her competitors to get a foothold in the race. Also because I don't think Adams really had a winning role, and while sometimes that doesn't matter, she didn't have the narrative either with Close's overdue narrative being the big story last year. I think with both Weisz and Stone being previous winners, there wasn't any urgency for them to win, and neither emerged as a possible winner over the other probably because both of their roles were equally loud and showy, and Colman who had the most sympathetic, showy role ended up being who voters rallied around in the end. She may have won SAG if Close had already won a film SAG, but I'm not totally sure because I think SAG voters really wanted Close to win the Oscar because of her narrative. Robbie was just another random nomination, but I think Blunt had more to do in A Quiet Place, and is obviously a SAG favorite now with getting double noms last year and a random nom for The Girl on the Train.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 18:38:54 GMT
It can also be argued that Elba won SAG over Rylance because of the Oscar snub. The timing bears that out -- SAG voting was in its final days, and I think support and goodwill for Elba in reaction to it got him over the hurdle. Oh I definitely think so especially with the #Oscarssowhite being such a major storyline once the nominations came out. Plus, SAG gave the random ensemble nomination to Beasts of No Nation despite there being only 3 actors listed in the ensemble, and two of them were unknown. I think that being snubbed also helped Emily Blunt win SAG this year too. Partly the snub, and partly because of maybe strategic voting from people who wanted King to win the Oscar but didn't want any of her competitors to get a foothold in the race. Also because I don't think Adams really had a winning role, and while sometimes that doesn't matter, she didn't have the narrative either with Close's overdue narrative being the big story last year. I think with both Weisz and Stone being previous winners, there wasn't any urgency for them to win, and neither emerged as a possible winner over the other probably because both of their roles were equally loud and showy, and Colman who had the most sympathetic, showy role ended up being who voters rallied around in the end. She may have won SAG if Close had already won a film SAG, but I'm not totally sure because I think SAG voters really wanted Close to win the Oscar because of her narrative. Robbie was just another random nomination, but I think Blunt had more to do in A Quiet Place, and is obviously a SAG favorite now with getting double noms last year and a random nom for The Girl on the Train. It should be noted that Colman wasn't really visible on the campaign circuit -- she was filming The Crown at the time, so she was absent from a lot of the major functions. And as we'll never know precisely how many votes she lost by at SAG, it's reasonable to think that her absence from things like that might've been all the difference between her and Close.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 19:15:05 GMT
Josh Safdie seems most hyped about Pesci as well. Says it's his greatest performance.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 19:24:57 GMT
Josh Safdie seems most hyped about Pesci as well. Says it's his greatest performance. All this tells me is that the Safdies better cast Pesci in their next anxiety-inducing movie.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Sept 30, 2019 19:27:26 GMT
Pesci should have won for Raging Bull too. I wouldn't be surprised to see him win NY Film Critics. The critics love him in Scorsese films and he's won the major four (NBR, NSFC, LAFCA and NYFCC).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 30, 2019 19:35:53 GMT
Josh Safdie seems most hyped about Pesci as well. Says it's his greatest performance. All this tells me is that the Safdies better cast Pesci in their next anxiety-inducing movie. Pesci's a goddamned legend. One of the most charasmatic character actors in history. He never had the "look" to be a leading man (despite a few terrific leads like My Cousin Vinny) but when given the parts, he could hold his own against the best leading men in the business. He's someone who I think would merit a second Oscar as well, but it still feels like Pitt's to lose for now. Sadly, I feel like Pesci will go back into retirement after this, so I don't see a Safidies collab happening
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Sept 30, 2019 19:38:15 GMT
Dana Stevens from Slant Magazine says Pesci gives what may be the best performance in the film.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 30, 2019 19:41:47 GMT
All this tells me is that the Safdies better cast Pesci in their next anxiety-inducing movie. Pesci's a goddamned legend. One of the most charasmatic character actors in history. He never had "look" to be a leading man (despite a few terrific leads like My Cousin Vinny) but when given the parts, he could hold his own against the best leading men in the business. He's someone who I think would merit a second Oscar as well, but it still feels like Pitt's to lose for now. Sadly, I feel like Pesci will go back into retirement after this, so I don't see a Safidies collab happening Name any movie, and I guarantee you 99% of the time, it is improved by recasting the lead with Joe Pesci.
|
|